(03-03-2021, 08:47 AM)JOK Wrote: [ -> ] (03-01-2021, 01:16 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]You use the evidence of outcomes yet you didn't even know that Scotland had select committees until I pointed them out to you? What examples of partisanship and lack of independence within Scottish government select committees do you have?
And Thatcher didn't come up with them, the Liberal Party pushed the minority Labour government to look into them in 1976. The recommendations for their creation were published in 1978. The bill that formally enacted them was presented before the 1979 general election.
I hate to be persnickety BB but whilst you are absolutely correct to point out that the current system of SCs were not the brainchild of Mrs. Thatcher (or her government’s) and were recommended by an independent committee which reported in 1978, Investigative committees for parliament have been around since (I think) the 16 hundreds and independent Oversight committees were instigated by Labour MP Richard Crossman, when leader of the house in the 1960s.
Though investigative committees provided the basis for modern select committees they weren't there to scrutinise government policy as select committees do and were more beholden to party whips and the whims of the government.
(02-27-2021, 08:13 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ]That’s a good point, what I should have said is there’s not even a “non-partisan” SC system in Scotland. Scrutiny doesn’t exist at Holyrood.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s...s-56451170
This the partisanship and lack of scrutiny you were referring to?
(03-19-2021, 12:30 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]This the partisanship and lack of scrutiny you were referring to?
And now Sturgeon is complaining about that committee being partisan. Which it is. Which they all are in Scotland.
(03-19-2021, 09:25 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 12:30 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]This the partisanship and lack of scrutiny you were referring to?
And now Sturgeon is complaining about that committee being partisan. Which it is. Which they all are in Scotland.
It's cross party, so someone on Sturgeon's side of things regarding independence has agreed with the Unionist contingent. So it isn't.
(03-19-2021, 09:50 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 09:25 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 12:30 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]This the partisanship and lack of scrutiny you were referring to?
And now Sturgeon is complaining about that committee being partisan. Which it is. Which they all are in Scotland.
It's cross party, so someone on Sturgeon's side of things regarding independence has agreed with the Unionist contingent. So it isn't.
Perhaps their partisan support is for Salmond? They do like a bit of sectarianism up there so I understand.
(03-19-2021, 10:45 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 09:50 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 09:25 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 12:30 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]This the partisanship and lack of scrutiny you were referring to?
And now Sturgeon is complaining about that committee being partisan. Which it is. Which they all are in Scotland.
It's cross party, so someone on Sturgeon's side of things regarding independence has agreed with the Unionist contingent. So it isn't.
Perhaps their partisan support is for Salmond? They do like a bit of sectarianism up there so I understand.
Assuming that it was Wightman that voted with the Unionist contingent, you think a socialist and member of the Scottish Greens would be on Salmond's side?
(03-19-2021, 10:58 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 10:45 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 09:50 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 09:25 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 12:30 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]This the partisanship and lack of scrutiny you were referring to?
And now Sturgeon is complaining about that committee being partisan. Which it is. Which they all are in Scotland.
It's cross party, so someone on Sturgeon's side of things regarding independence has agreed with the Unionist contingent. So it isn't.
Perhaps their partisan support is for Salmond? They do like a bit of sectarianism up there so I understand.
Assuming that it was Wightman that voted with the Unionist contingent, you think a socialist and member of the Scottish Greens would be on Salmond's side?
Hang on, you're trying to convince me now that the committee isn't partisan by stating that it's voted on partisan lines? Make your mind up.
(03-19-2021, 11:47 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 10:58 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 10:45 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 09:50 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 09:25 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ]And now Sturgeon is complaining about that committee being partisan. Which it is. Which they all are in Scotland.
It's cross party, so someone on Sturgeon's side of things regarding independence has agreed with the Unionist contingent. So it isn't.
Perhaps their partisan support is for Salmond? They do like a bit of sectarianism up there so I understand.
Assuming that it was Wightman that voted with the Unionist contingent, you think a socialist and member of the Scottish Greens would be on Salmond's side?
Hang on, you're trying to convince me now that the committee isn't partisan by stating that it's voted on partisan lines? Make your mind up.
The Scottish Greens are in government in Scotland. At least one person who is a member of a party in government in Scotland, either an SNP MSP or Wightman, has voted against the government position that their party endorsed. How is that remotely partisan?
(03-19-2021, 12:25 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 11:47 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 10:58 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 10:45 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 09:50 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]It's cross party, so someone on Sturgeon's side of things regarding independence has agreed with the Unionist contingent. So it isn't.
Perhaps their partisan support is for Salmond? They do like a bit of sectarianism up there so I understand.
Assuming that it was Wightman that voted with the Unionist contingent, you think a socialist and member of the Scottish Greens would be on Salmond's side?
Hang on, you're trying to convince me now that the committee isn't partisan by stating that it's voted on partisan lines? Make your mind up.
The Scottish Greens are in government in Scotland. At least one person who is a member of a party in government in Scotland, either an SNP MSP or Wightman, has voted against the government position that their party endorsed. How is that remotely partisan?
Yes, and you don't know who it is. Wee Nippy says the committee has split on "partisan" lines. I don't believe much of what she says but I'm pretty convinced that's true.
(03-19-2021, 12:51 PM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 12:25 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 11:47 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 10:58 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021, 10:45 AM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps their partisan support is for Salmond? They do like a bit of sectarianism up there so I understand.
Assuming that it was Wightman that voted with the Unionist contingent, you think a socialist and member of the Scottish Greens would be on Salmond's side?
Hang on, you're trying to convince me now that the committee isn't partisan by stating that it's voted on partisan lines? Make your mind up.
The Scottish Greens are in government in Scotland. At least one person who is a member of a party in government in Scotland, either an SNP MSP or Wightman, has voted against the government position that their party endorsed. How is that remotely partisan?
Yes, and you don't know who it is. Wee Nippy says the committee has split on "partisan" lines. I don't believe much of what she says but I'm pretty convinced that's true.
It is functionally impossible for this to be split on partisan lines, due to a member of a party in government in Scotland literally voting against their party's interests.