When will it go all wrong for the SNP?

[Red Onion]

The Scottish Health Secretary, Michael Matheson, who originally was going to have his £11,000 bill for use of his iPad abroad paid by taxpayers, has firstly paid it himself and secondly admitted that £8,666 of the bill was incurred by his sons watching Celtic play Rangers on 2 January, using nearly 3.8GB of data. Originally he said that the charges were "legitimately incurred on parliamentary business".
From https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ly-rwanda-policy-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-live:

I know I've got a background in IT but I find it hard to believe that someone supposedly competent could run up such a bill by accident and believe it was legitimate.

Surely most of us would have responded along the lines of:

1. That doesn't sound right
2. I'll look into it
3. Sorry, I've discovered the reason behind it
4. I'll pay for it myself

rather than try to get someone else to pay for it?
At least, given that the likely penalty for trying to blag the money from the taxpayer is going to be losing his job. I may not always be perfectly honest myself either, but I didn't fiddle my expenses when I was working.

What I am finding strange is that he stated the iPad was used as a hotspot for his kids rather than to watch the football directly. I’m curious as to why he allowed the government issued work ipad to be set up as a personal hotspot as, unless I’m wrong, you can’t just connect to it without authorisation from the iPad user. Surely that’s a security risk at the very least.

I can’t see how his position is tenable now.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Scottish Health Secretary, Michael Matheson, who originally was going to have his £11,000 bill for use of his iPad abroad paid by taxpayers, has firstly paid it himself and secondly admitted that £8,666 of the bill was incurred by his sons watching Celtic play Rangers on 2 January, using nearly 3.8GB of data.

That surely has to be one of the most expensive ever video watching sessions!

 

[Falcon1200]

Originally he said that the charges were "legitimately incurred on parliamentary business".

Which, as we now know (and did as soon as the matter became public knowledge) that assertion was complete nonsense. His boss, the First Minister, backed him to the hilt too, but now has a rather larger plateful of egg on his face; Believing, seriously, that the £11,000 bill was 'legitimately incurred', whilst on holiday, displays an incredible lack of judgement and intellectual rigour on the part of Humza Yousaf. But then again, it should come as no surprise given that he seriously believes he will lead Scotland to the Promised Land of independence.

 

[jfollows]

That surely has to be one of the most expensive ever video watching sessions!

Well, that's the point, isn't it?
I went round the world for 2 weeks in June and paid something like £6/day (O2) for 'unlimited' usage although I'm sure it would've been capped at less than 4GB/day, but I was paying the bill myself ......

 

[yorkie]

What I am finding strange is that he stated the iPad was used as a hotspot for his kids rather than to watch the football directly. I’m curious as to why he allowed the government issued work ipad to be set up as a personal hotspot as, unless I’m wrong, you can’t just connect to it without authorisation from the iPad user. Surely that’s a security risk at the very least.

At best it's extreme incompetence, to the level that you have to question how someone that incompetent ever got such a job.

I can’t see how his position is tenable now.

Agreed.

Surely most of us would have responded along the lines of:

1. That doesn't sound right
2. I'll look into it
3. Sorry, I've discovered the reason behind it
4. I'll pay for it myself

rather than try to get someone else to pay for it?

Spot on.

 

[jfollows]

Michael Matheson has resigned today, because a report on his £11,000 iPad bill will shortly be published. He wasn't sacked. So how much better would it have been if he'd resigned three months ago rather than trying to cling on?

 

[najaB]

So how much better would it have been if he'd resigned three months ago rather than trying to cling on?

Or if he'd just admitted that he'd been stupid enough to give his kids access and that it would be paid back. It could have been a non-issue.

 

[oldman]

Or if he'd just admitted that he'd been stupid enough to give his kids access and that it would be paid back. It could have been a non-issue.

Assuming that that is the whole story. We don't know yet what else the inquiry has discovered, but presumably he does and has decided accordingly - to avoid becoming 'a distraction' of course.

 

[jfollows]

Assuming that that is the whole story. We don't know yet what else the inquiry has discovered, but presumably he does and has decided accordingly - to avoid becoming 'a distraction' of course.

Yes, The Guardian reports (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ry-michael-matheson-resigns-ipad-roaming-bill)

It has been reported that he had been given a copy of the corporate body’s investigation and that it contained new evidence about his conduct.

The Sunday Times had also reported similarly (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...cretary-resigns-ipad-roaming-charge-65tjrl6sf):

At the weekend The Sunday Times reported that two sources believed the parliamentary report contained new information that would be “bad” for Matheson. Its conclusions needed to be approved by Alison Johnstone, the presiding officer, before a copy was sent to Matheson.

 

[najaB]

Assuming that that is the whole story. We don't know yet what else the inquiry has discovered, but presumably he does and has decided accordingly - to avoid becoming 'a distraction' of course.

That may well be, but had he done a mea culpa to start with there likely wouldn't have been an inquiry.

 

[oldman]

... there likely wouldn't have been an inquiry.

I think there would have been even without the initial lies. Opposition parties would beat the drum on security and constituents' confidentiality, the information commissioner would have had his say, and so on.

 

[Falcon1200]

Matheson's resignation comes about 13 months too late, and leaves Humza Yousaf with a plateful of egg on his face, having unequivocally backed Matheson instead of sacking him. However, as a committed Unionist, I am delighted with Yousaf's ongoing incompetence and lack of judgement, long may he reign!

 

[najaB]

I think there would have been even without the initial lies. Opposition parties would beat the drum on security and constituents' confidentiality, the information commissioner would have had his say, and so on.

Maybe. But 99% of the public would only paid attention to it in the first place because it involved misuse of public money.

By simply saying "Oops, shouldn't have let the kids use it, I'll pay the bill" at the first opportunity it would have become a non-issue for enough people for him to have weathered what would be seen as 'boring', or 'technical' by the public at large.

I mean, we have all seen dozens of stories about people who came back from holidays with huge roaming bills.

 

[Falcon1200]

By simply saying "Oops, shouldn't have let the kids use it, I'll pay the bill" at the first opportunity it would have become a non-issue for enough people for him to have weathered what would be seen as 'boring', or 'technical' by the public at large.

Probably yes, but there would still have been (and of course still are) questions about how Matheson's children were able to access and use a Government-owned and issued device, intended for confidential and personal business, in the way they did.

 

[Busaholic]

Maybe. But 99% of the public would only paid attention to it in the first place because it involved misuse of public money.

By simply saying "Oops, shouldn't have let the kids use it, I'll pay the bill" at the first opportunity it would have become a non-issue for enough people for him to have weathered what would be seen as 'boring', or 'technical' by the public at large.

I mean, we have all seen dozens of stories about people who came back from holidays with huge roaming bills.

That isn't good enough! Do these people who come back from holiday automatically expect their employers to pay these bills? Whichever way you look at it, it is attempted theft or fraud. Many a person who's misused an employer's credit card for their own personal foibles has been dismissed for dishonesty and some have been prosecuted, usually those who doth complain too much.

 

[najaB]

That isn't good enough! Do these people who come back from holiday automatically expect their employers to pay these bills? Whichever way you look at it, it is attempted theft or fraud.

Not if he had immediately offered to pay the bill as soon as he was made aware of it.

Probably yes, but there would still have been (and of course still are) questions about how Matheson's children were able to access and use a Government-owned and issued device, intended for confidential and personal business, in the way they did.

Indeed, there are. But I doubt it would have been enough of an issue for the opposition parties to get their teeth into.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I find it hard to comprehend how a party that made such a big fuss about corruption and malpractice at various times in particular during the pandemic can now behave in such a secretive and defensive manner, if they were sticking to their first principles on this they'd surely have put their hands up and maybe even fired his foreign traveling data abusing arse down the river a long time ago

 

[jfollows]

I find it hard to comprehend how a party that made such a big fuss about corruption and malpractice at various times in particular during the pandemic can now behave in such a secretive and defensive manner, if they were sticking to their first principles on this they'd surely have put their hands up and maybe even fired his foreign traveling data abusing arse down the river a long time ago

I think a significant subset of the electorate will come to the same conclusion, so that even though Labour will win the next election in the UK without any additional seats in Scotland, they will in fact take significant numbers of seats from the SNP there as well.
On the Matheson topic, we have got to allow people to make mistakes and forgive them appropriately, but not when they try and cover up their mistakes (as appears to be the case here), or to hope that nobody will notice, or in cases where people repeatedly make the same mistake. I used to have a "government procurement card" which is essentially a charge card which gets paid off in full each month by the taxpayer, obviously I had to account for and justify my spending. A colleague who also had one - and this could have been me - inadvertently made a personal purchase with it. It's not a sacking offence, once he realised he went directly to our finance people and told them, and paid them the money. No big deal. Mistake made, admitted, and resolved.

 

[najaB]

On the Matheson topic, we have got to allow people to make mistakes and forgive them appropriately, but not when they try and cover up their mistakes (as appears to be the case here), or to hope that nobody will notice, or in cases where people repeatedly make the same mistake.

Exactly! He wouldn't have been the first person to let their kids use a mobile device provided by his employer.

Should have have known better? Of course. Should he have faced some kind of reprimand? Yes, definitely. Was it, in itself, a sackable offense? No, IMO at least.

 

[MotCO]

Was it, in itself, a sackable offense? No, IMO at least.

No, but the denials and cover up are a sackable offence.

 

[najaB]

No, but the denials and cover up are a sackable offence.

Precisely. They've turned a minor issue into a scandal.

 

[317 forever]

I have seen polls suggesting the SNP dropping to 17-20 seats at the next General Election.

Given that the most they ever achieved before 2015 was 11 in October 1974, this means that Nicola Sturgeon's legacy of making voting SNP at General Elections - even though we would of course never have even had an SNP government at Westminster - will live on to some extent.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have seen polls suggesting the SNP dropping to 17-20 seats at the next General Election.

Given that the most they ever achieved before 2015 was 11 in October 1974, this means that Nicola Sturgeon's legacy of making voting SNP at General Elections - even though we would of course never have even had an SNP government at Westminster - will live on to some extent.

If they do drop to that level, one knock-on effect is likely to be the LibDems overtaking the SNP in Westminster seats and therefore returning to their position as the 3rd party at Westminster. That means the LibDems will inherit some Westminster privileges and publicity opportunities that the SNP currently hold - which could make life a little tougher for the SNP in the future.

 

[jfollows]

SNP "poll of polls" shown in a Guardian article today (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/12/snp-one-year-on-nicola-sturgeon-resignation)

Essentially there's a steady transition from SNP 48%/Labour 20% in 2/22 to both parties around 34% today.
SNP on track to lose 20+ of its 43 seats, mainly to Labour.

SNP tactics now seem to be to say that Labour will win the next election without any gains in Scotland, so if you're a true Scot, vote SNP and you'll still get rid of the Tories. Labour tactics to counter this will be that Labour needs seats in Scotland and that a vote for the SNP is a vote increasing the chance of the Conservatives winning the next election.
I think the first story is more true, but the SNP will lose lots of seats anyway, it seems inevitable.

The chart also shows relatively little decline in the support for other parties in Scotland over the last 2 years, Conservative down from 21% to 17%, not much.

EDIT Electoral Calculus has SNP on 18 seats, 30 losses from 48 in 2019, 3 to LibDem (Caithness, Fife NE & Mid Dunbartonshire). Labour in Scotland +27 seats to 28. Conservative in Scotland unchanged on 6. The 48 in 2019 has dwindled to 43 today because of defections and removal of the whip.

 

[brad465]

I can't work out which political party thread this clearly belongs in, but I'm going for this one because the SNP seem to be the ones kicking off the most:

The SNP and Tories got outraged at the Speaker apparently breaking convention over opposition day motions with his choice of motions on the Gaza ceasefire matter, which has now escalated in these two groups walking out the chamber:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68349957

Tory and SNP MPs walk out of the House​

SNP and Conservative MPs have walked out of the Commons chamber in an apparent protest over the Speaker's handling of the Gaza ceasefire debate.
We'll bring you more details as we get them.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

“When will it all go wrong for the Speaker of the House”

 

[birchesgreen]

Optics arn't great for the SNP whatever the rights and wrongs.

 

[nw1]

Optics arn't great for the SNP whatever the rights and wrongs.

Nor the Tories, they seem to be behaving rather petulantly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Feb 2024 ==

SNP "poll of polls" shown in a Guardian article today (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/12/snp-one-year-on-nicola-sturgeon-resignation)
View attachment 152120
Essentially there's a steady transition from SNP 48%/Labour 20% in 2/22 to both parties around 34% today.
SNP on track to lose 20+ of its 43 seats, mainly to Labour.

SNP tactics now seem to be to say that Labour will win the next election without any gains in Scotland, so if you're a true Scot, vote SNP and you'll still get rid of the Tories. Labour tactics to counter this will be that Labour needs seats in Scotland and that a vote for the SNP is a vote increasing the chance of the Conservatives winning the next election.

I doubt the latter will be true because whether it's a Labour seat or an SNP seat, it's a non-Tory seat and as long as the seats don't go Tory, there is no greater chance of the Tories winning.

It might stop Labour getting a majority, though that is not necessarily a bad thing given that majority governments aren't great for democracy anyway.

 

[Acfb]

Nor the Tories, they seem to be behaving rather petulantly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Feb 2024 ==


I doubt the latter will be true because whether it's a Labour seat or an SNP seat, it's a non-Tory seat and as long as the seats don't go Tory, there is no greater chance of the Tories winning.

It might stop Labour getting a majority, though that is not necessarily a bad thing given that majority governments aren't great for democracy anyway.

I doubt it will make much difference in the general election TBH as the SNP has still got most of the under 40 vote locked down anyway even now. I am a Labour member and am probably more sympathetic to Yousaf than the Labour Party establishment on this although I haven't bothered to follow the ins and what went on today. I do find Pete Wishart insufferable though and he seems to be throwing his toys out of the pram on twitter.

This issue could help the SNP more in the 2026 Holyrood election though if Trump (or any other Republican) gets back in the White House.

“When will it all go wrong for the Speaker of the House”

This is why there should be a new Speaker of the House every new parliamentary term. It shouldn't be some cosy sinecure and constituents wouldn't be disenfranchised

 

[Falcon1200]

Optics arn't great for the SNP whatever the rights and wrongs.

Nor the Tories, they seem to be behaving rather petulantly.

Much as I disagree with their very raison d'etre, given that yesterday was designated one of the SNP's 'Opposition Days' they have every right to feel aggrieved that the Speaker overruled convention in favour of Labour. As do the Tories, assuming that they are annoyed by the breach of protocol rather than playing party politics.....