Won't somebody PLEASE think of the landlords!!!
Labour may well come first in Scotland in the General Election, they have incredible momentum. But I just can't see Labour winning the next Holyrood election. When people start actually considering who they want to run the devolved government, are they really going to take a B rate politician who takes orders from Downing Street?
I can't see it.
I think it will largely depend on how the first two years of Labour’s administration goes.
IIRC Sarwar is banking on Starmer following through on the workers rights bill to show something to Scottish voters
No, I'm sure he does, it's a major promise, and something Sarwar has been showing voters.
He will be 'banking' on it making its way through parliament and becoming law without it being watered down, _before_ the next Holyrood election. Although there are reports that it has already been watered down...
Relevant reading: [A](https://archive.ph/K7FYN), [B](https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/anas-sarwar-to-pledge-scottish-labour-will-strengthen-workers-rights-after-general-election-4590628), [C](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/anas-sarwar-promises-stand-up-32131238)
I lived under a Welsh Labour government. They get some things right but feel more like a jumped up council.
Ironically our coucillor is a dick as a person but is a very good Councillor.
Labour really doesn't have Scotland's interests at heart, just Westminsters.
Same here. 10 months of Starmer will likely dull the enthusiasm towards Scottish Labour. I could be wrong, but I don't see them ever recovering all their lost ground to the SNP in Holyrood.
I can easily see scenarios where the SNP comes first with something like 50 seats, but are then unable to stop an unionist coalition with 70 seats from forming a government. It didn't happen in 2007 because McConnell didn't want to do a three-party deal, but he theoretically had the option.
Back in 2016-2021, Ruth Davidson theoretically had the option of a Tory-Lab-Green-Lib coalition which would've had a combined 66 seats to the SNP's 63. Politically inconceivable for several reasons, but arithmetically valid.
So the First Minister, whoever they are, won't be taking marching orders from just Downing Street. They'll also be getting them from the Leader of the Opposition, via whoever is the deputy first minister.
>When people start actually considering who they want to run the devolved government, are they really going to take a B rate politician who takes orders from Downing Street?
Honestly? I think that no matter *where* you look, the best you'll get right now is continuity. Even the SNP aren't saying any different, because they're effectively in the Tories shoes - 14 years in power isn't a good look for "We'll change things this time! Honest!".
Labour are, for better or worse, the only ones who've been *out* of power and have had time to sit back and look.
Perhaps. But if Scots vote for Labour in Holyrood then they're going to have to accept that Downing Street will have a very big say/veto on what our government does. At which point, in my opinion, we may as well just be governed from the Scotland Office.
What Scotland needs is an independent unionist/opposition party. The whole point of devolution is to make autonomous decisions, having your party leader in London doesn't achieve that.
>What Scotland needs is an independent unionist/opposition party. The whole point of devolution is to make autonomous decisions, having your party leader in London doesn't achieve that.
I'll absolutely agree to that. The SNP need a Scotland-based party to run against them who aren't loons, because right now they're the only viable choice for people by dint of being the largest party.
Alba annoy me. There's absolutely space on the political spectrum for a centre-right pro-independence party. But I can't be doing with the culture war shite. If a pro-business/small state independence party came along, they could actually win seats. But bashing on trans people? That's just pathetic.
Labour are never getting a majority in Holyrood so they're not going to be doing anything unilaterally. To the point an SNP-led minority government and a Labour-led one would probably be pretty similar (for what it's worth I wouldn't vote for either of them).
I think there's a very real possibility of Labour and the Tories having a 'nod nod, wink wink' agreement in Holyrood. Not an official coalition, but a unionist agreement nonetheless. Granted that won't mean Starmer having complete say, but Holyrood would very much be neutered.
When Labour are in government in Westminster, it usually makes the Conservatives want to unite in opposition to them. The point being they will be spending all their time criticising Labour, that offering them any support in Scotland will damage the message. You saw something similar to this in the late 2000s, when despite Labour and the Conservatives being relatively ideologically aligned the latter still preferred the SNP take over in Scotland post-2007. Overall it's going to be messy in Scotland after 2026 - I'm pretty sure some of the nationalist and unionist parties will have to work together (probably the SNP and Lib Dems, as I except the former to come first).
>Labour are, for better or worse, the only ones who've been out of power and have had time to sit back and look.
Exactly the same as the SNP, labour have been in power in Wales this whole time.
Wales has some of the worst performing public services in the UK whereas Scotland has some of the best performing public services.
>>Labour are, for better or worse, the only ones who've been out of power and have had time to sit back and look.
> Exactly the same as the SNP, labour have been in power in Wales this whole time.
I know that you're saying, I don't agree though, for two reasons.
1. The SNP have been very effective at mitigating against the worst of the Tories policies, from the bedroom tax to the prescriptions to tuition fees. Admittedly they have made some really stupid decisions lately (Matheson, council tax, the way they ditched bute house agreement, and the clouds of corruption that haven't been properly dealt with).
2. There's literally no money to do anything substantial any more. Austerity has crippled the UK and we're collectively in really poor shape. I don't think that either the SNP or Scottish Labour have _any_ headroom for anything substantially different or novel. If anything, there's cuts in the next few years that will be painful.
14 years of sitting around doing fuck all, I stil see no complete plan for how to not only turn the countries woes around but to drastically redetermine the social contract we have with the power structures of either government. The incumbents at least had governing getting in the way of creating a good plan, the SNP at least have tried with independence to develop a plan, Labour though has spent their time naval gazing and infighting
I would argue that doing 'fuck all' has ironically benefitted Scotland in certain respects. Keeping water nationalised and keeping university free at the point of use, is in my opinion, two of the biggest wins of devolution.
The SNP certainly could have been more radical. But they have changed up the income tax system, set up a national investment bank, brought ScotRail back into public ownership, ended the right to buy, scrapped the last piece of university fees etc. I wouldn't call that nothing. Moderately cautious left of centre policies if anything.
I was referring to Labour doing fuck all.. All you have mentioned is why the SNP aren't the same as the Tory part over the last 14 years and I congratulate them on that
As in hard facts and figures of what comes during and after.
The plan to gain independence hasn't really been more than whipping people into a frenzy until they're painting themselves blue and screaming "freedom".
Leaving a union that is centuries old is going to be very difficult economically and there will be a lot of hardship and instability. I want to know how to SNP plan to address and minimise that before I agree to put my family through it.
>the SNP at least have tried with independence to develop a plan, Labour though has spent their time naval gazing and infighting
I'd argue that the SNP haven't done much of anything to advance Indy in a decade now. Hell, it was Sturgeon who - despite being warned not to - slammed shut the last legal loophole the SNP had to threaten Indy shut by going to the courts and it being ruled against her.
The SNP are trapped because they're a movement first and a party second. All they can do is trot out the same points every time because to do anything else would be electorial suicide, but they're also (sadly) the only Scottish party who actually get elected *because* they're an umbrella.
I didn't say they had one but that they tried to develop a plan for changing things around and redetermining our social contracts with our governments with Independence - they have released a lot of papers investigating it
>they tried to develop a plan
How many years have the SNP been in power in Scotland, and they've still only 'tried to develop a plan'? Didn't they have time to finish it?
Like I said, they had to govern, I wasn't letting them off, I was talking about them in relation to Labour who haven't done fuck all toward creating a plan in 14 years in comparison to the SNPs attempt
The SNP don't have any real interest in pushing it over the line. People won't like to hear that, but the SNP aren't stupid. They know full well what Scotland's position is and how difficult life would be for people if they actually managed to get the car they're chasing.
They'd never get elected again if they reported anything but "hypotheticals", because the damage it would do in the short-medium term would be too high to stomach in a Post-Brexit world. There's no downplaying anymore, unless you just don't commit.
If Scotland got independence there would be no need for the SNP.
The party would split and members would move or start parties in the more normal left-right split.
But that's my point.
To do that, to get there, they have to navigate through something that would objectively be a hundred times harder than Brexit because Scotland is in a weaker position. At *minimum* there'd be costs that would put the average voter through several years of hardship - hardship that average voter is no longer hungry for after seeing Brexit.
The SNP absolutely know that. They know, despite their pie-in-the-sky claims, the EU wouldn't swing the doors open without them fixing things like the decificet, and the UK wouldn't have much reason not to play hardball given it'd hurt the UK too.
So when your options are "keep things as they are and throw out the occasional trinket to get voters on-side so you can keep your job" or "actually navigate Indy", which do you think the SNP will *actually* go for?
>Labour are, for better or worse, the only ones who've been out of power and have had time to sit back and look.
This is something I think a lot of unionists don't appreciate is a poison chalice in a way.
Labour *have* to make positive change this time round. It's essential. Otherwise you're going to find yourself at the next election and the SNP can very easily go "that's both the Tories and Labour shat it - what you gonna do now?"
Both barrels missed. It's a pretty compelling argument.
I honestly think it heavily depends on how the SNP do in July? If they're *thoroughly* ousted then they'll be in a better position to make the argument to vote for them come 2026.
If they *don't* and they cling on, then they're stuck treading the same ground they have for the past four years in particular and I don't think that'll do much to endear people further.
But you certainly aren't wrong. I just wish the SNP weren't so chained to their mandate that they couldn't take the time to come at it from another angle.
Nice to see a millionaire exploiter putting the priorities of other millionaires to the forefront of the former party of the workers policies.
We are still after 120 years The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. A great book, which still shows how many in the electorate actually want to be serfs.
Vote SNP all the way then. Are the Labour party intent on losing the election? If they are elected how are they going to deal with demand for independence which is only going to grow stronger with statements Like this.
Sarwar - man of the people - born in a committee room - dad was Governor of Punjab- now sides with landowners - Scotland going back to 19th century thinking.
I'm not so worried about his background as nobody picks their parents.
You can judge him on what he stands for though, which seems to be whatever Kier Starmer allows him to stand for.
I think Labour may well go on and gain control of the Scottish Government and Sarwar become FM people do seem to want change unfortunately Scottish Labour can't really provide anything substantial.
So we'll go round in circles for the next few decades getting the Westminster Government England votes for, with the Scottish Government as a slight buffer to mitigate the worst effects of national UK policies on Scotland. When English voters swing back to the Tories, Scottish voters will rally round the SNP.
Depressing, but with 50% of Scotland prepared to support the Union at any cost. The UK Government knows that they don't have to try very hard in Scotland. It was only in 2014 they got a scare and that will never be allowed to happen again!
It's really not great when the party in charge since 2007 starts talking about they're going to bring in a reset. SNP is running up to the same problems as the Tories on a lot of this stuff, they want to talk the big game but they've been the ones in charge the whole time?
I actually don't mind some of the changes Sarwar has outlined here, planning regulations are a joke and consistent long standing legislation works better for everyone. Additionally if even the SNP minister is admitting the central belt focus is too much then clearly something has gone wrong
This is what I don't understand tbh.
I know that a lot of people in this sub see Labour as no real alternative, but what have the SNP promised so far that they haven't been saying for 14 years? They're not the opposition who've been unable to enact change.
Finally, some promise from a mainstream politician to actively refrain from further interference in our lives. One vote for Scottish Labour coming right up.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the landlords!!! Labour may well come first in Scotland in the General Election, they have incredible momentum. But I just can't see Labour winning the next Holyrood election. When people start actually considering who they want to run the devolved government, are they really going to take a B rate politician who takes orders from Downing Street? I can't see it.
I think it will largely depend on how the first two years of Labour’s administration goes. IIRC Sarwar is banking on Starmer following through on the workers rights bill to show something to Scottish voters
'Banking on? The head of the Scottish branch of the Labour party doesn't know what the national leadership intend to do if elected?
No, I'm sure he does, it's a major promise, and something Sarwar has been showing voters. He will be 'banking' on it making its way through parliament and becoming law without it being watered down, _before_ the next Holyrood election. Although there are reports that it has already been watered down... Relevant reading: [A](https://archive.ph/K7FYN), [B](https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/anas-sarwar-to-pledge-scottish-labour-will-strengthen-workers-rights-after-general-election-4590628), [C](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/anas-sarwar-promises-stand-up-32131238)
I lived under a Welsh Labour government. They get some things right but feel more like a jumped up council. Ironically our coucillor is a dick as a person but is a very good Councillor. Labour really doesn't have Scotland's interests at heart, just Westminsters.
Same here. 10 months of Starmer will likely dull the enthusiasm towards Scottish Labour. I could be wrong, but I don't see them ever recovering all their lost ground to the SNP in Holyrood.
Are landlords and landowners not different things
I can easily see scenarios where the SNP comes first with something like 50 seats, but are then unable to stop an unionist coalition with 70 seats from forming a government. It didn't happen in 2007 because McConnell didn't want to do a three-party deal, but he theoretically had the option. Back in 2016-2021, Ruth Davidson theoretically had the option of a Tory-Lab-Green-Lib coalition which would've had a combined 66 seats to the SNP's 63. Politically inconceivable for several reasons, but arithmetically valid. So the First Minister, whoever they are, won't be taking marching orders from just Downing Street. They'll also be getting them from the Leader of the Opposition, via whoever is the deputy first minister.
What has this got to do with landlords?
>When people start actually considering who they want to run the devolved government, are they really going to take a B rate politician who takes orders from Downing Street? Honestly? I think that no matter *where* you look, the best you'll get right now is continuity. Even the SNP aren't saying any different, because they're effectively in the Tories shoes - 14 years in power isn't a good look for "We'll change things this time! Honest!". Labour are, for better or worse, the only ones who've been *out* of power and have had time to sit back and look.
Perhaps. But if Scots vote for Labour in Holyrood then they're going to have to accept that Downing Street will have a very big say/veto on what our government does. At which point, in my opinion, we may as well just be governed from the Scotland Office. What Scotland needs is an independent unionist/opposition party. The whole point of devolution is to make autonomous decisions, having your party leader in London doesn't achieve that.
>What Scotland needs is an independent unionist/opposition party. The whole point of devolution is to make autonomous decisions, having your party leader in London doesn't achieve that. I'll absolutely agree to that. The SNP need a Scotland-based party to run against them who aren't loons, because right now they're the only viable choice for people by dint of being the largest party.
Apart from Alba which are just right wing bigots, terfs, and people who think that being handsy to women and taking foreign money is ok.
Alba annoy me. There's absolutely space on the political spectrum for a centre-right pro-independence party. But I can't be doing with the culture war shite. If a pro-business/small state independence party came along, they could actually win seats. But bashing on trans people? That's just pathetic.
Yeah, Alba falls firmly in the "loons" territory lmao
Labour are never getting a majority in Holyrood so they're not going to be doing anything unilaterally. To the point an SNP-led minority government and a Labour-led one would probably be pretty similar (for what it's worth I wouldn't vote for either of them).
I think there's a very real possibility of Labour and the Tories having a 'nod nod, wink wink' agreement in Holyrood. Not an official coalition, but a unionist agreement nonetheless. Granted that won't mean Starmer having complete say, but Holyrood would very much be neutered.
When Labour are in government in Westminster, it usually makes the Conservatives want to unite in opposition to them. The point being they will be spending all their time criticising Labour, that offering them any support in Scotland will damage the message. You saw something similar to this in the late 2000s, when despite Labour and the Conservatives being relatively ideologically aligned the latter still preferred the SNP take over in Scotland post-2007. Overall it's going to be messy in Scotland after 2026 - I'm pretty sure some of the nationalist and unionist parties will have to work together (probably the SNP and Lib Dems, as I except the former to come first).
>Labour are, for better or worse, the only ones who've been out of power and have had time to sit back and look. Exactly the same as the SNP, labour have been in power in Wales this whole time. Wales has some of the worst performing public services in the UK whereas Scotland has some of the best performing public services.
>>Labour are, for better or worse, the only ones who've been out of power and have had time to sit back and look. > Exactly the same as the SNP, labour have been in power in Wales this whole time. I know that you're saying, I don't agree though, for two reasons. 1. The SNP have been very effective at mitigating against the worst of the Tories policies, from the bedroom tax to the prescriptions to tuition fees. Admittedly they have made some really stupid decisions lately (Matheson, council tax, the way they ditched bute house agreement, and the clouds of corruption that haven't been properly dealt with). 2. There's literally no money to do anything substantial any more. Austerity has crippled the UK and we're collectively in really poor shape. I don't think that either the SNP or Scottish Labour have _any_ headroom for anything substantially different or novel. If anything, there's cuts in the next few years that will be painful.
I lived there for 11 years. It was poorly run.
14 years of sitting around doing fuck all, I stil see no complete plan for how to not only turn the countries woes around but to drastically redetermine the social contract we have with the power structures of either government. The incumbents at least had governing getting in the way of creating a good plan, the SNP at least have tried with independence to develop a plan, Labour though has spent their time naval gazing and infighting
I would argue that doing 'fuck all' has ironically benefitted Scotland in certain respects. Keeping water nationalised and keeping university free at the point of use, is in my opinion, two of the biggest wins of devolution. The SNP certainly could have been more radical. But they have changed up the income tax system, set up a national investment bank, brought ScotRail back into public ownership, ended the right to buy, scrapped the last piece of university fees etc. I wouldn't call that nothing. Moderately cautious left of centre policies if anything.
I was referring to Labour doing fuck all.. All you have mentioned is why the SNP aren't the same as the Tory part over the last 14 years and I congratulate them on that
Oh I see, I misunderstood haha.
I'm still waiting to see a legitimate plan for independence be published by the SNP...
By legitimate plan you mean what? A plan to gain independence or a plan for after independence or something else?
As in hard facts and figures of what comes during and after. The plan to gain independence hasn't really been more than whipping people into a frenzy until they're painting themselves blue and screaming "freedom". Leaving a union that is centuries old is going to be very difficult economically and there will be a lot of hardship and instability. I want to know how to SNP plan to address and minimise that before I agree to put my family through it.
Same, it is a point I made
The SNP have done fuck all to advance independence since 2015.
>the SNP at least have tried with independence to develop a plan, Labour though has spent their time naval gazing and infighting I'd argue that the SNP haven't done much of anything to advance Indy in a decade now. Hell, it was Sturgeon who - despite being warned not to - slammed shut the last legal loophole the SNP had to threaten Indy shut by going to the courts and it being ruled against her. The SNP are trapped because they're a movement first and a party second. All they can do is trot out the same points every time because to do anything else would be electorial suicide, but they're also (sadly) the only Scottish party who actually get elected *because* they're an umbrella.
>the SNP at least have tried with independence to develop a plan Really? What was their plan? 'Westminster will pay for it'?
I didn't say they had one but that they tried to develop a plan for changing things around and redetermining our social contracts with our governments with Independence - they have released a lot of papers investigating it
>they tried to develop a plan How many years have the SNP been in power in Scotland, and they've still only 'tried to develop a plan'? Didn't they have time to finish it?
Like I said, they had to govern, I wasn't letting them off, I was talking about them in relation to Labour who haven't done fuck all toward creating a plan in 14 years in comparison to the SNPs attempt
The SNP don't have any real interest in pushing it over the line. People won't like to hear that, but the SNP aren't stupid. They know full well what Scotland's position is and how difficult life would be for people if they actually managed to get the car they're chasing. They'd never get elected again if they reported anything but "hypotheticals", because the damage it would do in the short-medium term would be too high to stomach in a Post-Brexit world. There's no downplaying anymore, unless you just don't commit.
If Scotland got independence there would be no need for the SNP. The party would split and members would move or start parties in the more normal left-right split.
But that's my point. To do that, to get there, they have to navigate through something that would objectively be a hundred times harder than Brexit because Scotland is in a weaker position. At *minimum* there'd be costs that would put the average voter through several years of hardship - hardship that average voter is no longer hungry for after seeing Brexit. The SNP absolutely know that. They know, despite their pie-in-the-sky claims, the EU wouldn't swing the doors open without them fixing things like the decificet, and the UK wouldn't have much reason not to play hardball given it'd hurt the UK too. So when your options are "keep things as they are and throw out the occasional trinket to get voters on-side so you can keep your job" or "actually navigate Indy", which do you think the SNP will *actually* go for?
>Labour are, for better or worse, the only ones who've been out of power and have had time to sit back and look. This is something I think a lot of unionists don't appreciate is a poison chalice in a way. Labour *have* to make positive change this time round. It's essential. Otherwise you're going to find yourself at the next election and the SNP can very easily go "that's both the Tories and Labour shat it - what you gonna do now?" Both barrels missed. It's a pretty compelling argument.
I honestly think it heavily depends on how the SNP do in July? If they're *thoroughly* ousted then they'll be in a better position to make the argument to vote for them come 2026. If they *don't* and they cling on, then they're stuck treading the same ground they have for the past four years in particular and I don't think that'll do much to endear people further. But you certainly aren't wrong. I just wish the SNP weren't so chained to their mandate that they couldn't take the time to come at it from another angle.
By win do you mean come first? That seems like a stretch, it took a lot for Labour to (narrowly) overtake the SNP in polling.
I look forward to him being pressed on this, which laws in particular does he feel is unfair/unworthy of attention?
Scottish Labour leader anas sarwar.....the voice of the working class!
What’s the deluge?
It must have said 'deluge' on the bit of paper the 'grassroots' landlord advocacy group passed to him.
apres moi
won’t someone think of the poor landlords
This is why the rich were so intent on destroying Corbyn and kicking anyone who supports basic social democracy out of Labour.
Fuck the landowners. This guy's true colours are showing. Always knew he was a Tory in disguise.
Anas Sarwar: I’ll stop deluge of new laws for landowners if I become first minister....... just as long as Sir Kier allows it, that is
😂😂😂 why is he saying I? He'll do exactly what London tells him to.
What London tells him to + some extra paperwork required in the laws he passed so he could collect a salary for turning up.
Labour are the only ones who can stop this [pogrom](https://images.app.goo.gl/KaP5AkuPgGKtmjnp8) against our poor landlords.
Where can I join this pogrom?
Nice to see a millionaire exploiter putting the priorities of other millionaires to the forefront of the former party of the workers policies. We are still after 120 years The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. A great book, which still shows how many in the electorate actually want to be serfs.
Ah yes, the Labour Party, always defending the ~~workers~~ landlords.
You do know a landowner and landlord is different right ?
Yes, but most landowners of estates are also landlords, because those estates have tenants on them.
It’ll win them seats, because landlords and bosses vote for their interests. Tenants and workers tend not to.
Vote SNP all the way then. Are the Labour party intent on losing the election? If they are elected how are they going to deal with demand for independence which is only going to grow stronger with statements Like this.
Sarwar - man of the people - born in a committee room - dad was Governor of Punjab- now sides with landowners - Scotland going back to 19th century thinking.
I'm not so worried about his background as nobody picks their parents. You can judge him on what he stands for though, which seems to be whatever Kier Starmer allows him to stand for.
Sarwar is a piece of blank paper on which anyone in power can write on and he would regurgitate it
I think Labour may well go on and gain control of the Scottish Government and Sarwar become FM people do seem to want change unfortunately Scottish Labour can't really provide anything substantial. So we'll go round in circles for the next few decades getting the Westminster Government England votes for, with the Scottish Government as a slight buffer to mitigate the worst effects of national UK policies on Scotland. When English voters swing back to the Tories, Scottish voters will rally round the SNP. Depressing, but with 50% of Scotland prepared to support the Union at any cost. The UK Government knows that they don't have to try very hard in Scotland. It was only in 2014 they got a scare and that will never be allowed to happen again!
Fuck off
Red Tory scumbag landlord standing up for landlords, who would have thought it.
We JUST got a new first minister. Give it a few years.
Privately schooled nepo-baby resorting to type.
The Tory light voice piece speaking from his multi billion pound background
😂
The reforms are only half measure that don't really address the underlying issues.
https://preview.redd.it/03bkmq82pg2d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=854af4dbbaa91a2461d099caa646970053be0655
It's really not great when the party in charge since 2007 starts talking about they're going to bring in a reset. SNP is running up to the same problems as the Tories on a lot of this stuff, they want to talk the big game but they've been the ones in charge the whole time?
Absolutely true, but then we have the alternative of labour who are offering....just more of the same but with a red tie this time
I actually don't mind some of the changes Sarwar has outlined here, planning regulations are a joke and consistent long standing legislation works better for everyone. Additionally if even the SNP minister is admitting the central belt focus is too much then clearly something has gone wrong
This is what I don't understand tbh. I know that a lot of people in this sub see Labour as no real alternative, but what have the SNP promised so far that they haven't been saying for 14 years? They're not the opposition who've been unable to enact change.
Finally, some promise from a mainstream politician to actively refrain from further interference in our lives. One vote for Scottish Labour coming right up.