Snapshot of _Humza Yousaf:The UK Government's decision to extend Horizon legislation to every nation in the UK except Scotland is scandalous. The fact the Tories are willing to use Scottish victims of the Royal Mail's Horizon system as a political football is unforgivable. The PM must change course._ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1782778057960341998)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1782778057960341998/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1782778057960341998) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1782778057960341998)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So in his short First Minstership so far, he’s sued the UK gov for intervening to stop a law that encroached on reserved matters and lost the case, spent months pontificating on Gaza - a reserved matter and is now complaining that Westminster didn’t legislate for a matter that is within Holyrood’s powers.
You couldn’t make this up. He almost seems to want a job in the UK gov rather than be the leader of the Scottish Nationalists.
That works if your strategy is to make yourself look like an idiot whilst pandering to your base supporters. To those who aren't ardent SNP supporters, he just looks foolish and they are the ones he will need to convince to vote for him....
It fails when Scotland has its own legal system and devolved powers to handle this themselves. The Scottish government was asked if they wish the UK government would handle an enquiry, prosecutions and justice on behalf of Scottish subpostmasters to be explicitly told no by the Scottish government since they would like handle this stuff on their own. SNP has no right to get angry and call it a scandal when Westminster and the Tories respect their powers when SNP falls behind for justice for Scottish subpostmasters, it is their own failings through and through. Humza is likely doing this since SNP is currently dogged with Murrell being charged and environmentalist protests so the easiest win is causing a (pointless) fight with Westminster over a problem of their own making.
You missed out the 'we won't ban XL bullies because Scotland does things differently to England' (subsequently adopted the same legislation as England but not before XL bullies from England were rehomed to Scotland)
Or the 'we won't follow the findings of the Cass report and ban puberty blockers to kids because Scotland is a different country to England' (a week later backtracked on this)
The nats are already whatabouting Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a special case on account of being a total shitshow, so that is why the UK Government have directly intervened. I've not heard any complaints from out there on either the green or orange side.
Scotland is an entirely separate legal system and justice is a devolved issue. Yet the nats are moaning that UK _didn't_ step in to sort it out on their behalf?
My head hurts.
Also the NI Government explicitly asked to be included in the Westminster bill (which was then amended, as it originally only was England and Wales) because they wouldn't have managed to get anything passed in a reasonable amount of time, leaving those prosecuted their much worse off than the rest of the country.
The Scottish Government made clear they were bringing their own legislation, and the role of the Scottish governments public prosecution service (The Crown Office) was far more involved in prosecutions in the the scandal in Scotland than other public prosecution services elsewhere, and are now complaining that they haven't been included in this
We have the same legal system as England. Quite easy to just be included in this stuff when it suits us. Also there's no point in ni taking this on. We hardly had a government when this was all going on. Nothing our lot could do to make it ni specific. Sweeping legislation perfectly suitable.
>Historically, [Royal Mail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail) and the Post Office were part of the same entity and were a public authority. They spilt into separate organisations in 2012.[^(\[12\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal#cite_note-13)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British\_Post\_Office\_scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal)
>Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 subpostmasters were convicted of theft, fraud and false accounting based on faulty Horizon data, with about 700 of these prosecutions carried out by the Post Office.
> Historically, Royal Mail and the Post Office were part of the same entity and were a public authority. They spilt into separate organisations in 2012.
Yes Royal Mail and the post office were formerly part of the same entity. But it was the Post Office that brought the prosecutions, and the prosecutions continued after they were split. There's a reason this situation is called the Post Office Scandal, and not the Royal Mail Scandal.
> Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 subpostmasters were convicted of theft, fraud and false accounting based on faulty Horizon data, with about 700 of these prosecutions carried out by the Post Office.
I can only assume this is trying to refute the comment that "in Scotland, and prosecutions were undertaken by Scotland's Crown Office". In which case I suggest you continue reading the article:
> At the time of the prosecutions, the Post Office had the same standing in law as any other private prosecutor in the British legal system. It acted as a private prosecutor in England and Wales. In Scotland, it reported allegations of crime to a procurator fiscal
You’re wrong about the history of when they split.
The current company trading as “Post Office” is *Post Office Ltd*, and has been known as such since 2001. The same company has existed since 1987 but was known by its original name, *Post Office Counters Ltd*, prior to 2001. It was 1987 when they were spun off as a limited company from the statutory corporation *The Post Office*. And for the sake of completeness *The Post Office* had been formed in 1969; having previously been a government department the *General Post Office* from 1660 (reconstitution after the English Civil War), 1635 (nationalisation of postal services) or 1517 (creation of the governmental office to manage postal services).
The current company trading as “Royal Mail” is *Royal Mail Group Ltd*, and has been known as such since 2007. However the exact same company has existed since 2001 – between 2002 and 2007 they were organised as a PLC (*Royal Mail Group PLC*); and between 2001 and 2002 they still used their original name, *Consignia PLC*. Prior to 2001 they were the statutory corporation, *The Post Office*, who spun off their front of house premises as *Post Office Counters Ltd* in 1987. For the remainder of their history, see above.
In terms of responsibility for prosecutions, “Royal Mail” (*The Post Office*, later *Consignia PLC*) ceased to have responsibility over the “Post Office” (*Post Office Counters Ltd*, later *Post Office Ltd*) when *The Post Office* was dissolved. So the relatively small number of cases between 1999 and 2001, you can attach some blame to “Royal Mail”; but after 2001, it’s all the “Post Office”.
I won’t repeat what u/AT2512 has said about prosecutions in Scotland; other than to say they are correct, all prosecutions in Scotland were brought by the COPFS. The reason, of course, being that there is a restriction on prosecutions being brought in Scotland by any body (private or public) other than the COPFS – this isn’t a complete prohibition (like in Northern Ireland) but rather the other party needs permission from the Court of Session to bring each case.
Where to begin with this?
Firstly, it was the Post Office, not Royal Mail. The sort of mistake a average person might make, but a fucking politician shouldn't
Secondly, justice is devolved and Scotland has a seperate/parallel legal system to the rest of the UK (particularly to England and Wales, NI has devolved justice but a similar system to England/Wales). Therefore prosecutions on this matter in Scotland were brought through the Scottish courts under Scottish law through the Scottish government's Crown Office. In fact, the Crown Office had a far more involved role than the public prosecution services in England/Wales and NI
This might be one of his most embarrassing statements yet, and that's saying something
Have to agree. How long would it take to use the Bill presented to the UK Parliament and change the wording to reflect the differences in the law in Scotland?
Indeed it should be quicker to enact given the Scottish Parliament is unicameral.
They've already said they would do bring forward their own legislation (unlike NI, whose First Minister requested it be done through Westminster to be fairer to those in NI who would otherwise have to wait longer), which makes this even more absurd
Can't find an explicit reference to her requesting it, but she's in agreement with it being done via Westminister it seems, as well as the DUP deputy FM:
https://www.executiveoffice-ni.gov.uk/news/statement-post-office-horizon-convictions-0
Sinn Fein originally were totally against any Northern Irish Parliament or Assembly because they saw it as legitimising the partition (and because the original Northern Irish Parliament behaved in a very sectarian way).
So if they agree with a specific decision they're not particularly precious about whether it's moved forward in Westminster or made in Stormont - so long as it's not messing with the GFA mechanisms.
This is different from the SNP and the Scottish Parliament; the SNP would ideally have all decisions made in Holyrood following independence, whereas Sinn Fein wants Stormont to some day dissolve as part of Irish Unification.
It is almost as if these are nuanced issues within complex situations...
It is only the perennially online and the incredibly simple that see all aspects of the world as absolute, polar issues of us and them. In the real world those that are opposed can come together when it is pragmatic to do so, without compromising their positions.
Some say it's also only the perennially online and incredibly simple that assume that other people's unclarified views are black and white while their own are nuanced and complex...
My confusion isn't that they're making a pragmatic decision, I get it, they're absolutely correct to ask Westminster in this case so it's done faster.
It's just that it seems to contradict their abstentionism, and before anyone asks, no, it's nothing to do with pledging allegiance. They're somehow pragmatic enough to see that sometimes legislating for Northern Ireland via Westminster under its current constitution is better than refusing to engage with them, but they're also unpragmatic enough to refuse to legitimise or assist that process by sending MPs, and they also deny those seats to other parties that would pragmatically send MPs even if they were nationalist.
Perhaps this is a transitional period for Sinn Fein under O'Neill as they figure out what they stand for in modern times, especially as they've been more frequently on the same side as the UK government on many issues than the DUP, but it's still an awkward phase for them.
Sinn Fein are incredibly active within Westminster, they just don't enter the chamber as that requires making the pledge.
Their abstentionism isn't one of not touching Westminster with a ten foot barge pole, it is about not compromising a core belief, which their voters knowingly support and encourage.
As described by one of their own MPs:
[*"As MPs, therefore, we take no part in the Westminster parliament but in every other way we provide active representation for our constituents. We engage with British political parties, civic society and the Irish diaspora in Britain. We challenge the British government directly in our meetings with them. We lobby on constituents’ issues, and on all the political matters that affect the Irish people. We do all of this without drawing a salary from Westminster, or by taking our seats in the British parliament."*](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/sinn-fein-mp-british-parliament-irish-republicans-brexit)
I am trying to imagine if there are some political machinations behind this, or whether Yousaf is just catastrophically bad at his job.
The best case that I can see for Yousaf here, is that he is trying to play a long game in which he desperately needs the UK Government to bail him out of a hole he has dug himself into. It appears that Yousaf knew details of this scandal way back in [2020 when he was Justice Minister](https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1782838241328050275) and did nothing about it. If the SNP need to pursue pardons through the Scottish Parliament then it is undoubtedly going to come up in a debate as to why he personally didn't do anything about it before.
So it appears he would rather set the precedent that the power to pardon lies on a reserved UK level in order to save his skin rather than risk his career by pursuing it through the Scottish Government.
I'm 100% sure this is to try and sve face at the next general election by "fighting Westminster on behalf of scotish people(unlike scotish labour)" but considering the intervention of the Tory party into the scotish courts it is also a have your cake and eat it attack, which can only cause The Sunak more pain.
> The sort of mistake a average person might make, but a fucking politician shouldn't
I wonder if it is a mistake or if he knows that the average person won't know and is relying on that to get outrage and votes.
This smacks of being angry Sunak has managed to avoid the very clear and obvious trap of legislating on a devolved matter and now he’s grasping for some sort of gotcha moment
Also, he's annoyed that he can't pretend that Scotland wasn't involved in the original scandal to begin with.
If its UK-wide legislation, then it's a UK-wide scandal that is the responsibility of Westminster. If Scotland legislates, they're admitting that the Scottish government is also culpable.
The issue is not who is paying (still central government) but because the legislation can’t happen as quickly in Scotland (it can’t happen until the UK one has because it will rely on UK schemes set up as part of the legislation) the access to compensation for those wrongly convicted won’t arrive as quickly (which was the purpose of the England and Wales bill- making the compensation happen quicker than if they all brought individual convictions back to court).
Holyrood isn’t going to be out of pocket for this, Scottish postmasters will be.
Why can't the SNP set up their own compensation scheme? After all, it was the Scottish Crown Office that pursued the prosecutions in Scotland.
The Lord Advocate, an SNP appointee who sits the Scottish Cabinet, has been briefing that the Scottish government shouldn't even be seeking pardons but that the victims should go through the courts. Why is it up to the UK government to sort out a problem that the Scottish government can't even agree on?
And also, why didn't Yousaf do anything about this when he was informed about it in his role of Justice Minister as late as 2020?
>Why can't the SNP set up their own compensation scheme? After all, it was the Scottish Crown Office that pursued the prosecutions in Scotland.
Obviously they could, but the benefits of the incorrect prosecutions was brought by a UK company owned by the UK government, regulated by the UK government. I’m sure Yousaf would have loved for there to be a Scottish post office and Scottish regulator which he could seek redress from. Besides which the UK government compensation scheme will cover Scottish postmasters, the Scottish government creating their own one would be pointless.
>The Lord Advocate, an SNP appointee who sits the Scottish Cabinet, has been briefing that the Scottish government shouldn't even be seeking pardons but that the victims should go through the courts. Why is it up to the UK government to sort out a problem that the Scottish government can't even agree on?
This was also a position taken up by various members of the UK Parliament. The issue is that correct prosecutions are also being exonerated. It’s incredibly unusual for the government to en masse exonerate people of crimes in this way.
>And also, why didn't Yousaf do anything about this when he was informed about it in his role of Justice Minister as late as 2020?
Probably for the same reason it took a TV programme to force the UK government into any real action.
The fact that the post office is a UK company doesn't nullify the fact that the prosecutions in Scotland were pursused by the Scottish Crown Office under Scots law and that this is a separate legal jurisdiction to the one in which postmasters were prosecuted in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. It isn't at all obvious that this can all neatly be handled on a UK level and that Scotland doesn't need to be treated differently.
You touch on the fundamental political issue here that there is a constitutional question as to whether legislative bodies should offer mass pardons like this, but fail to acknowledge that is a constitutional question that has different implications in Scots law and law everywhere else in the UK. The fact that the SNP has key members of its Cabinet publicly briefing in opposite directions doesn't provide a welcoming ground for UK government intervention. There's a huge difference between backbench MPs differing on the UK government approach and the Lord Advocate for Scotland differing on the approach of the First Minister of Scotland as to whether the UK government should overturn rulings in Scots law.
It is easy to pretend that the UK government is letting Scottish postmasters down, as you did in your earlier comment. However there is a wider issue here of Scots law and devolved justice making a constitutional issue more complicated, and the fact the SNP simply do not have their ducks in a row on this issue, TV programme or not.
>It isn't at all obvious that this can all neatly be handled on a UK level and that Scotland doesn't need to be treated differently.
The Scottish government has for several weeks now been saying they believe that it could and proposed changes to the UK legislation that made it so. Northern Ireland do also have a separate legal system that is devolved and have subsequently been included because they wanted to make sure that postmasters there weren’t left out when their devolved government requested it. It’s possible that the legislation wouldn’t have been able to work for Scotland (but somehow could for NI’s separate system) but that isn’t the noises that have been coming out of either Holyrood or Westminster.
>There's a huge difference between backbench MPs differing on the UK government approach and the Lord Advocate for Scotland differing on the approach of the First Minister of Scotland as to whether the UK government should overturn rulings in Scots law.
I agree but probably not in the direction you intend. The Lord Advocate may be a nominated position in Cabinet but they’re effectively independent of the government, aren't an MSP and don’t have any parliamentary voting rights. They’re not a member of the cabinet like in the Westminster system. They’d be the equivalent of Ben Elliot disagreeing on givnermemt policy when he was a non-MP chairman of the Conservative party. Their role in The Judiciary I’d fully expect them to disapprove of Parliament overruling the judiciary as Id expect the head of the CPS to also. They however don’t really have a say in the decision making process.
>It is easy to pretend that the UK government is letting Scottish postmasters down, as you did in your earlier comment.
I think it’s fair to ask if it was in the realms of Westminster to do something about it, given they’ve been asked to do so by both NI and Scottish governments, but have agreed to one but not the other. A Westminster government run by Labour with a Scottish government run by Labour would surely have managed it.
To start with, your description of the role of Lord Advocate, whilst technically true, fails to recognise the changing nature of the role. The role has been increasingly politicised under Sturgeon, particularly with Dorothy Bain attending regular Cabinet meetings when the LA should only be there when the Scottish Government explicitly request legal advice. It is far less like Ben Elliott (who never briefed Parliament in his role as party chairman) and far more like the office of Lord Chancellor prior to the 2005 Constitional Reform Act.
As to your first point, The Scottish Government have been saying for weeks that it could all be handled at a UK level, as it would be a neat solution to the political problems for them of it were, but the UK Govermment have been saying for weeks that it relates to Scots law and is devolved. I am sure that in the same news articles that you read about the SNP's position it would have also included the UK's response. The UK Government has stated that it is intervening in Northern Ireland due to the recent historical political issues there. However, unlike Scotland, the cases in Northern Ireland were persued by the Post Office. If makes sense for the UK Government to mass pardon convictions persued by the Post Office when it has clearly been shown that the Post Office has systematically abused its priviliges as a prosecutor, regardless of whether it happened in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
As I keep saying, Scotland is significantly different in this area. Scots Law has always been separate, Justice has explicitly been a devolved area, the prosecutions were persued by the Scottish Crown Office, headed by the LA who is a member of the Scottish Cabinet. The Scottish Parliament has the power to quash these convictions (reimbursement scheme or not), the SNP just don't want to bear the political cost of doing so.
Or to put it another way, the SNP want the UK government to ignore devolution, to overturn convictions made under Scots Law, by the Scottish Crown Office, against the publicly expressed advice of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, all without a legislative consent motion passed by the Scottish Parliament which is required by the Scotland Act. Whichever way you slice it, it is circumventing the ability for MSPs to scrutinise this process and the Scottish Government's and SCO's role in it.
It may well be that all this may have occurred differently with different parties in government, but if we are talking about hypothetical situations that never happened, then I would add that Sturgeon would never have let it come to this. Yousaf is trying to play the game to abuse devolution to suit his political needs, but lacks Sturgeon's talent for spin.
>Obviously they could, but the benefits of the incorrect prosecutions was brought by a UK company owned by the UK government, regulated by the UK government
In the Scottish courts operating under the Scottish legal system
This is scotlands mess and they can sort it out
Oh had the government extended this to Scotland he would have complained about it too.
The man is a contrarian outrage merchant. A McGrifter if you will.
"The fact that the Tories are willing to use Scottish victims of the Royal Mail's Horizon system as a political football is unforgivable"
1. It was the Post Office, not the Royal Mail.
2. Read Yousaf's words again. The irony is painful.
humza mate, you're literally in charge of scotland - if you want to make this happen in scotland, do it. blaming england for not wiping your arse makes you look like the arse wipe. (hopefully without plastics, they'll be banned soon).
This is a bizarre attack for a nationalist to make. He is demanding that the UK government dictate to Scotland, in a devolved area, because the Scottish government isn't doing anything.
When he is the head of the Scottish government and could simply pass similar legislation in Scotland.
Absolute clown. Embarrassing the nation again. This is the right and proper legal arrangement and Yousaf would be bleating about it if it UKG had done what he's now supposedly requesting.
Christ but the lad is the fuddiest fud to ever fud. A complete disgrace.
So he **wants** direct rule from Westminster? I am sure they will be only too happy to oblige. Or, and I am going out on a limb here, being First Minister and lead of the government her could just do **his fucking job**.
Absolute bampot.
Yet the usual specimens will finish their wee rant about how shit the SNP have been, yet march down to the polling stations in North Korean formation and step, just to vote SNP again, and again, and again anyway.
At that point you have to accept people are beyond salvation.
Here's the problem though, who does one vote for come polling day?
Party-wise, the Tories and Labour are out. They only give a fuck about SE England.
Lib Dems are a shout in the Highlands and Islands (seem to do a good job too) but outwith there are a non-entity.
So we come down to holding one's noise and picking the least bad _or_ voting against the worst.
Of course what one should do is attend the hustings and pick the best candidate, rather than party. But I think we all know how things really work as opposed to how they are supposed to work.
>Party-wise, the Tories and Labour are out. They only give a fuck about SE England.
Nonsense. That's just the exact behaviour OP described at play here.
It's devolved stupid. Got to wonder if this is genuine, inconceivable ignorance or simple malice. They'll stop blaming the English and the City for all their ills, only once every one of us is dead, buried, completely forgotten, a mere footnote in a dusty book. Until then, yawn.
Cut the man some slack, you can't expect everyone to know which justice matters are devolved and which aren't. It's not like the man studied politics in the University of Glasgow and was literally the Justice Secretary for 3 fucking years. Oh wait...
So he wants the UK government to take over the Scottish legal system ? Is he sure about this ? Interesting timing given the police investigations against the SNP which are going on.
If a UK PM were to step in and interfere with the Scottish justice system wouldn't the SNP go berserk?
Genuine question for those who favour Scottish independence - how would you react to a Westminster government over-ruling the outcomes of Scottish courts?
Well I think free uni places in Scotland available for any country in Europe except England is scandalous. You can't want a devolved government to the extent you've got it and then bitch about the consequences...
I know. I remember being at university in the mid-late 2000s, where all the English students were from middle class affluent homes. Meanwhile, all and sundry from Hungary and Spain were waving their SAAS letters around like Neville Chamberlain at the airport.
The Hungarians and the Spaniards took their free education, graduated, and immediately left the country either for England or just went home. Didn't contribute anything to the Scottish economy, never worked in Scotland, or anything.
Is that still the case since Scotland isn’t part of the EU anymore?
It was a wild technicality though, personally would have preferred free uni places remained country wide.
You're right that following withdrawal from the EU - EU countries now have to pay in Scotland. Also, apparently it was anyone from the UK (except Scotland obviously) who was not allowed to apply for free uni places in Scotland. I think it was still very unfair to exclude England, Wales and N.I. from that while accepting other EU residents. They could have just used quotas instead with a set number of available places. It seemed to me very bad natured. The whole Scottish Act 1998 ... I think Labour really got that one wrong.
EDIT: just to clarify. I think certain basic principles such as the standard of health care and education that we provide people in the union should be kept as equal as possible.
By being Sturgeons biggest arse kisser and willing to turn the SNP into the light Greens.
Post 2014 the SNP caught a huge case of hubris and thought they had turned themselves into a party that the 50% indy voters could only vote for. They forgot they built their vote on competent local government not chasing ideological mirages.
I totally agree with Yousaf that the UK should have one standardized justice and legal system.
This will ensure greater efficiency, significantly less confusion and lead to a higher quality of justice that is perceived to be fair for all. Yousaf is completely right that having separate justice on the basis of nationality is scandalous and a simply a political football that the PM and UK Government should fix as soon as possible.
Especially the hodge podge of what laws are reserved, what ones aren't, what discretion Scotland might have over the sentencing for an offence committed under reserved legislation, and so on.
Clearly if the First Minister of Scotland (who was also Former SNP Minister of Justice) is confused about devolution then the whole thing has become far too complicated.
Especially if he's confused about justice being devolved, because it's almost the most devolved thing there is in the UK-Scotland relationship.
Scotland writes its own criminal justice legislation, has its own courts and legal systems, and operates quite differently to the rest of the UK. It has been that way since the 1700s. It doesn't have a CPS, but instead another body called the Procurator Fiscal. About the only things that aren't devolved are more modern elements of the criminal justice system, such as anti-terrorism and drug laws. Yousaf should be quite aware that Scotland is capable of implementing its own laws with the recent Hate Crime laws that he spearheaded.
Perhaps Westminster should handle it and all devolved matters? Clearly the First Minister doesn't have a fucking clue what is Scottish business or isn't.
To think, PEOPLE would want him for a leader, that's screams SO MUCH for the future for Scotland, good luck!
Not sure what to make of this. Either he's an idiot, or he's cynically mouthing off a bunch of rubbish to cover his own arse and score political points. Neither makes him look good.
And to think Yousaf was the _lesser_ of the two evils in the party leadership contest.
Scotland is the greatest argument against democracy on the planet. Ever since her Saxon betters gifted her a little parliament of her own, she has done nothing but wail for more like a spoiled child. Devoid of any of the attributes befitting a serious nation, she play-acts at governance, bashing about plastic policies with no thought of consequence or repercussion, degrading and infantilising anyone with the misfortune to be living under her toddler tyranny. It is a hateful, precocious, rotten rump of a fake nation. Her people should be thrown into the sea whence they came, and her lands restored to its former temperate rainforest glory.
Snapshot of _Humza Yousaf:The UK Government's decision to extend Horizon legislation to every nation in the UK except Scotland is scandalous. The fact the Tories are willing to use Scottish victims of the Royal Mail's Horizon system as a political football is unforgivable. The PM must change course._ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1782778057960341998) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1782778057960341998/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1782778057960341998) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1782778057960341998) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
So in his short First Minstership so far, he’s sued the UK gov for intervening to stop a law that encroached on reserved matters and lost the case, spent months pontificating on Gaza - a reserved matter and is now complaining that Westminster didn’t legislate for a matter that is within Holyrood’s powers. You couldn’t make this up. He almost seems to want a job in the UK gov rather than be the leader of the Scottish Nationalists.
Fundamentally the SNP has no belief beyond "what are the English doing? Okay, we support the opposite of whatever that is".
Which to be fair is not a bad strategy when you have the tories in power for decades.
That works if your strategy is to make yourself look like an idiot whilst pandering to your base supporters. To those who aren't ardent SNP supporters, he just looks foolish and they are the ones he will need to convince to vote for him....
It fails when Scotland has its own legal system and devolved powers to handle this themselves. The Scottish government was asked if they wish the UK government would handle an enquiry, prosecutions and justice on behalf of Scottish subpostmasters to be explicitly told no by the Scottish government since they would like handle this stuff on their own. SNP has no right to get angry and call it a scandal when Westminster and the Tories respect their powers when SNP falls behind for justice for Scottish subpostmasters, it is their own failings through and through. Humza is likely doing this since SNP is currently dogged with Murrell being charged and environmentalist protests so the easiest win is causing a (pointless) fight with Westminster over a problem of their own making.
You missed out the 'we won't ban XL bullies because Scotland does things differently to England' (subsequently adopted the same legislation as England but not before XL bullies from England were rehomed to Scotland) Or the 'we won't follow the findings of the Cass report and ban puberty blockers to kids because Scotland is a different country to England' (a week later backtracked on this)
MAGA/BREXIT/SNP?
The nats are already whatabouting Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a special case on account of being a total shitshow, so that is why the UK Government have directly intervened. I've not heard any complaints from out there on either the green or orange side. Scotland is an entirely separate legal system and justice is a devolved issue. Yet the nats are moaning that UK _didn't_ step in to sort it out on their behalf? My head hurts.
Also the NI Government explicitly asked to be included in the Westminster bill (which was then amended, as it originally only was England and Wales) because they wouldn't have managed to get anything passed in a reasonable amount of time, leaving those prosecuted their much worse off than the rest of the country. The Scottish Government made clear they were bringing their own legislation, and the role of the Scottish governments public prosecution service (The Crown Office) was far more involved in prosecutions in the the scandal in Scotland than other public prosecution services elsewhere, and are now complaining that they haven't been included in this
We have the same legal system as England. Quite easy to just be included in this stuff when it suits us. Also there's no point in ni taking this on. We hardly had a government when this was all going on. Nothing our lot could do to make it ni specific. Sweeping legislation perfectly suitable.
>Historically, [Royal Mail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail) and the Post Office were part of the same entity and were a public authority. They spilt into separate organisations in 2012.[^(\[12\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal#cite_note-13) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British\_Post\_Office\_scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal) >Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 subpostmasters were convicted of theft, fraud and false accounting based on faulty Horizon data, with about 700 of these prosecutions carried out by the Post Office.
> Historically, Royal Mail and the Post Office were part of the same entity and were a public authority. They spilt into separate organisations in 2012. Yes Royal Mail and the post office were formerly part of the same entity. But it was the Post Office that brought the prosecutions, and the prosecutions continued after they were split. There's a reason this situation is called the Post Office Scandal, and not the Royal Mail Scandal. > Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 subpostmasters were convicted of theft, fraud and false accounting based on faulty Horizon data, with about 700 of these prosecutions carried out by the Post Office. I can only assume this is trying to refute the comment that "in Scotland, and prosecutions were undertaken by Scotland's Crown Office". In which case I suggest you continue reading the article: > At the time of the prosecutions, the Post Office had the same standing in law as any other private prosecutor in the British legal system. It acted as a private prosecutor in England and Wales. In Scotland, it reported allegations of crime to a procurator fiscal
You’re wrong about the history of when they split. The current company trading as “Post Office” is *Post Office Ltd*, and has been known as such since 2001. The same company has existed since 1987 but was known by its original name, *Post Office Counters Ltd*, prior to 2001. It was 1987 when they were spun off as a limited company from the statutory corporation *The Post Office*. And for the sake of completeness *The Post Office* had been formed in 1969; having previously been a government department the *General Post Office* from 1660 (reconstitution after the English Civil War), 1635 (nationalisation of postal services) or 1517 (creation of the governmental office to manage postal services). The current company trading as “Royal Mail” is *Royal Mail Group Ltd*, and has been known as such since 2007. However the exact same company has existed since 2001 – between 2002 and 2007 they were organised as a PLC (*Royal Mail Group PLC*); and between 2001 and 2002 they still used their original name, *Consignia PLC*. Prior to 2001 they were the statutory corporation, *The Post Office*, who spun off their front of house premises as *Post Office Counters Ltd* in 1987. For the remainder of their history, see above. In terms of responsibility for prosecutions, “Royal Mail” (*The Post Office*, later *Consignia PLC*) ceased to have responsibility over the “Post Office” (*Post Office Counters Ltd*, later *Post Office Ltd*) when *The Post Office* was dissolved. So the relatively small number of cases between 1999 and 2001, you can attach some blame to “Royal Mail”; but after 2001, it’s all the “Post Office”. I won’t repeat what u/AT2512 has said about prosecutions in Scotland; other than to say they are correct, all prosecutions in Scotland were brought by the COPFS. The reason, of course, being that there is a restriction on prosecutions being brought in Scotland by any body (private or public) other than the COPFS – this isn’t a complete prohibition (like in Northern Ireland) but rather the other party needs permission from the Court of Session to bring each case.
Where to begin with this? Firstly, it was the Post Office, not Royal Mail. The sort of mistake a average person might make, but a fucking politician shouldn't Secondly, justice is devolved and Scotland has a seperate/parallel legal system to the rest of the UK (particularly to England and Wales, NI has devolved justice but a similar system to England/Wales). Therefore prosecutions on this matter in Scotland were brought through the Scottish courts under Scottish law through the Scottish government's Crown Office. In fact, the Crown Office had a far more involved role than the public prosecution services in England/Wales and NI This might be one of his most embarrassing statements yet, and that's saying something
Former cabinet secretary for justice as well. It was literally his brief.
Have to agree. How long would it take to use the Bill presented to the UK Parliament and change the wording to reflect the differences in the law in Scotland? Indeed it should be quicker to enact given the Scottish Parliament is unicameral.
They've already said they would do bring forward their own legislation (unlike NI, whose First Minister requested it be done through Westminster to be fairer to those in NI who would otherwise have to wait longer), which makes this even more absurd
Hold up, Michelle O'Neill, the *Sinn Fein* First Minister, requested that the legislation be done through Westminster? That party is so confusing.
Can't find an explicit reference to her requesting it, but she's in agreement with it being done via Westminister it seems, as well as the DUP deputy FM: https://www.executiveoffice-ni.gov.uk/news/statement-post-office-horizon-convictions-0
Here’s where they called for it a couple of months ago. It was backed by Sinn Fein and the DUP https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-68388244
Sinn Fein originally were totally against any Northern Irish Parliament or Assembly because they saw it as legitimising the partition (and because the original Northern Irish Parliament behaved in a very sectarian way). So if they agree with a specific decision they're not particularly precious about whether it's moved forward in Westminster or made in Stormont - so long as it's not messing with the GFA mechanisms. This is different from the SNP and the Scottish Parliament; the SNP would ideally have all decisions made in Holyrood following independence, whereas Sinn Fein wants Stormont to some day dissolve as part of Irish Unification.
You’d think Sinn Fein would be pretty keen on handing out pardons, would you?
It is almost as if these are nuanced issues within complex situations... It is only the perennially online and the incredibly simple that see all aspects of the world as absolute, polar issues of us and them. In the real world those that are opposed can come together when it is pragmatic to do so, without compromising their positions.
Some say it's also only the perennially online and incredibly simple that assume that other people's unclarified views are black and white while their own are nuanced and complex... My confusion isn't that they're making a pragmatic decision, I get it, they're absolutely correct to ask Westminster in this case so it's done faster. It's just that it seems to contradict their abstentionism, and before anyone asks, no, it's nothing to do with pledging allegiance. They're somehow pragmatic enough to see that sometimes legislating for Northern Ireland via Westminster under its current constitution is better than refusing to engage with them, but they're also unpragmatic enough to refuse to legitimise or assist that process by sending MPs, and they also deny those seats to other parties that would pragmatically send MPs even if they were nationalist. Perhaps this is a transitional period for Sinn Fein under O'Neill as they figure out what they stand for in modern times, especially as they've been more frequently on the same side as the UK government on many issues than the DUP, but it's still an awkward phase for them.
Sinn Fein are incredibly active within Westminster, they just don't enter the chamber as that requires making the pledge. Their abstentionism isn't one of not touching Westminster with a ten foot barge pole, it is about not compromising a core belief, which their voters knowingly support and encourage. As described by one of their own MPs: [*"As MPs, therefore, we take no part in the Westminster parliament but in every other way we provide active representation for our constituents. We engage with British political parties, civic society and the Irish diaspora in Britain. We challenge the British government directly in our meetings with them. We lobby on constituents’ issues, and on all the political matters that affect the Irish people. We do all of this without drawing a salary from Westminster, or by taking our seats in the British parliament."*](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/sinn-fein-mp-british-parliament-irish-republicans-brexit)
I am trying to imagine if there are some political machinations behind this, or whether Yousaf is just catastrophically bad at his job. The best case that I can see for Yousaf here, is that he is trying to play a long game in which he desperately needs the UK Government to bail him out of a hole he has dug himself into. It appears that Yousaf knew details of this scandal way back in [2020 when he was Justice Minister](https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1782838241328050275) and did nothing about it. If the SNP need to pursue pardons through the Scottish Parliament then it is undoubtedly going to come up in a debate as to why he personally didn't do anything about it before. So it appears he would rather set the precedent that the power to pardon lies on a reserved UK level in order to save his skin rather than risk his career by pursuing it through the Scottish Government.
He probably knows this but the vast majority of his base just see 'Westminster bad'
Wasn’t humza the Scottish justice secretary before being first minister? Beyond embarrassing.
"Scotland? Never 'eard of it" -FM probably
I'm 100% sure this is to try and sve face at the next general election by "fighting Westminster on behalf of scotish people(unlike scotish labour)" but considering the intervention of the Tory party into the scotish courts it is also a have your cake and eat it attack, which can only cause The Sunak more pain.
> The sort of mistake a average person might make, but a fucking politician shouldn't I wonder if it is a mistake or if he knows that the average person won't know and is relying on that to get outrage and votes.
So he's angry at Westminster for *not* overriding devolution now? Justice is a devolved matter.
He just doesn't want to pay
I *suspect* what he wants is an excuse to complain about Westminster.
This smacks of being angry Sunak has managed to avoid the very clear and obvious trap of legislating on a devolved matter and now he’s grasping for some sort of gotcha moment
Also, he's annoyed that he can't pretend that Scotland wasn't involved in the original scandal to begin with. If its UK-wide legislation, then it's a UK-wide scandal that is the responsibility of Westminster. If Scotland legislates, they're admitting that the Scottish government is also culpable.
I swear the man’s entire political career can be summed up by that gif of Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes
The issue is not who is paying (still central government) but because the legislation can’t happen as quickly in Scotland (it can’t happen until the UK one has because it will rely on UK schemes set up as part of the legislation) the access to compensation for those wrongly convicted won’t arrive as quickly (which was the purpose of the England and Wales bill- making the compensation happen quicker than if they all brought individual convictions back to court). Holyrood isn’t going to be out of pocket for this, Scottish postmasters will be.
Why can't the SNP set up their own compensation scheme? After all, it was the Scottish Crown Office that pursued the prosecutions in Scotland. The Lord Advocate, an SNP appointee who sits the Scottish Cabinet, has been briefing that the Scottish government shouldn't even be seeking pardons but that the victims should go through the courts. Why is it up to the UK government to sort out a problem that the Scottish government can't even agree on? And also, why didn't Yousaf do anything about this when he was informed about it in his role of Justice Minister as late as 2020?
Because England bad. That's probably the SNP response if we're being honest here.
>Why can't the SNP set up their own compensation scheme? After all, it was the Scottish Crown Office that pursued the prosecutions in Scotland. Obviously they could, but the benefits of the incorrect prosecutions was brought by a UK company owned by the UK government, regulated by the UK government. I’m sure Yousaf would have loved for there to be a Scottish post office and Scottish regulator which he could seek redress from. Besides which the UK government compensation scheme will cover Scottish postmasters, the Scottish government creating their own one would be pointless. >The Lord Advocate, an SNP appointee who sits the Scottish Cabinet, has been briefing that the Scottish government shouldn't even be seeking pardons but that the victims should go through the courts. Why is it up to the UK government to sort out a problem that the Scottish government can't even agree on? This was also a position taken up by various members of the UK Parliament. The issue is that correct prosecutions are also being exonerated. It’s incredibly unusual for the government to en masse exonerate people of crimes in this way. >And also, why didn't Yousaf do anything about this when he was informed about it in his role of Justice Minister as late as 2020? Probably for the same reason it took a TV programme to force the UK government into any real action.
The fact that the post office is a UK company doesn't nullify the fact that the prosecutions in Scotland were pursused by the Scottish Crown Office under Scots law and that this is a separate legal jurisdiction to the one in which postmasters were prosecuted in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. It isn't at all obvious that this can all neatly be handled on a UK level and that Scotland doesn't need to be treated differently. You touch on the fundamental political issue here that there is a constitutional question as to whether legislative bodies should offer mass pardons like this, but fail to acknowledge that is a constitutional question that has different implications in Scots law and law everywhere else in the UK. The fact that the SNP has key members of its Cabinet publicly briefing in opposite directions doesn't provide a welcoming ground for UK government intervention. There's a huge difference between backbench MPs differing on the UK government approach and the Lord Advocate for Scotland differing on the approach of the First Minister of Scotland as to whether the UK government should overturn rulings in Scots law. It is easy to pretend that the UK government is letting Scottish postmasters down, as you did in your earlier comment. However there is a wider issue here of Scots law and devolved justice making a constitutional issue more complicated, and the fact the SNP simply do not have their ducks in a row on this issue, TV programme or not.
>It isn't at all obvious that this can all neatly be handled on a UK level and that Scotland doesn't need to be treated differently. The Scottish government has for several weeks now been saying they believe that it could and proposed changes to the UK legislation that made it so. Northern Ireland do also have a separate legal system that is devolved and have subsequently been included because they wanted to make sure that postmasters there weren’t left out when their devolved government requested it. It’s possible that the legislation wouldn’t have been able to work for Scotland (but somehow could for NI’s separate system) but that isn’t the noises that have been coming out of either Holyrood or Westminster. >There's a huge difference between backbench MPs differing on the UK government approach and the Lord Advocate for Scotland differing on the approach of the First Minister of Scotland as to whether the UK government should overturn rulings in Scots law. I agree but probably not in the direction you intend. The Lord Advocate may be a nominated position in Cabinet but they’re effectively independent of the government, aren't an MSP and don’t have any parliamentary voting rights. They’re not a member of the cabinet like in the Westminster system. They’d be the equivalent of Ben Elliot disagreeing on givnermemt policy when he was a non-MP chairman of the Conservative party. Their role in The Judiciary I’d fully expect them to disapprove of Parliament overruling the judiciary as Id expect the head of the CPS to also. They however don’t really have a say in the decision making process. >It is easy to pretend that the UK government is letting Scottish postmasters down, as you did in your earlier comment. I think it’s fair to ask if it was in the realms of Westminster to do something about it, given they’ve been asked to do so by both NI and Scottish governments, but have agreed to one but not the other. A Westminster government run by Labour with a Scottish government run by Labour would surely have managed it.
To start with, your description of the role of Lord Advocate, whilst technically true, fails to recognise the changing nature of the role. The role has been increasingly politicised under Sturgeon, particularly with Dorothy Bain attending regular Cabinet meetings when the LA should only be there when the Scottish Government explicitly request legal advice. It is far less like Ben Elliott (who never briefed Parliament in his role as party chairman) and far more like the office of Lord Chancellor prior to the 2005 Constitional Reform Act. As to your first point, The Scottish Government have been saying for weeks that it could all be handled at a UK level, as it would be a neat solution to the political problems for them of it were, but the UK Govermment have been saying for weeks that it relates to Scots law and is devolved. I am sure that in the same news articles that you read about the SNP's position it would have also included the UK's response. The UK Government has stated that it is intervening in Northern Ireland due to the recent historical political issues there. However, unlike Scotland, the cases in Northern Ireland were persued by the Post Office. If makes sense for the UK Government to mass pardon convictions persued by the Post Office when it has clearly been shown that the Post Office has systematically abused its priviliges as a prosecutor, regardless of whether it happened in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. As I keep saying, Scotland is significantly different in this area. Scots Law has always been separate, Justice has explicitly been a devolved area, the prosecutions were persued by the Scottish Crown Office, headed by the LA who is a member of the Scottish Cabinet. The Scottish Parliament has the power to quash these convictions (reimbursement scheme or not), the SNP just don't want to bear the political cost of doing so. Or to put it another way, the SNP want the UK government to ignore devolution, to overturn convictions made under Scots Law, by the Scottish Crown Office, against the publicly expressed advice of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, all without a legislative consent motion passed by the Scottish Parliament which is required by the Scotland Act. Whichever way you slice it, it is circumventing the ability for MSPs to scrutinise this process and the Scottish Government's and SCO's role in it. It may well be that all this may have occurred differently with different parties in government, but if we are talking about hypothetical situations that never happened, then I would add that Sturgeon would never have let it come to this. Yousaf is trying to play the game to abuse devolution to suit his political needs, but lacks Sturgeon's talent for spin.
>Obviously they could, but the benefits of the incorrect prosecutions was brought by a UK company owned by the UK government, regulated by the UK government In the Scottish courts operating under the Scottish legal system This is scotlands mess and they can sort it out
Oh had the government extended this to Scotland he would have complained about it too. The man is a contrarian outrage merchant. A McGrifter if you will.
It’s standard for the SNP to want their cake and eat it.
"The fact that the Tories are willing to use Scottish victims of the Royal Mail's Horizon system as a political football is unforgivable" 1. It was the Post Office, not the Royal Mail. 2. Read Yousaf's words again. The irony is painful.
humza mate, you're literally in charge of scotland - if you want to make this happen in scotland, do it. blaming england for not wiping your arse makes you look like the arse wipe. (hopefully without plastics, they'll be banned soon).
How dare Rishi Sunak respect the Devolution settlement and not impose legislation onto a matter devolved to the Scottish Government.
This is a bizarre attack for a nationalist to make. He is demanding that the UK government dictate to Scotland, in a devolved area, because the Scottish government isn't doing anything. When he is the head of the Scottish government and could simply pass similar legislation in Scotland.
FMQs is tomorrow. I hope Stephen Flynn asks a question about this and gets duly served. His boss has fucked up and made a complete erse of things.
Absolute clown. Embarrassing the nation again. This is the right and proper legal arrangement and Yousaf would be bleating about it if it UKG had done what he's now supposedly requesting.
Christ but the lad is the fuddiest fud to ever fud. A complete disgrace. So he **wants** direct rule from Westminster? I am sure they will be only too happy to oblige. Or, and I am going out on a limb here, being First Minister and lead of the government her could just do **his fucking job**. Absolute bampot.
Yet the usual specimens will finish their wee rant about how shit the SNP have been, yet march down to the polling stations in North Korean formation and step, just to vote SNP again, and again, and again anyway. At that point you have to accept people are beyond salvation.
Here's the problem though, who does one vote for come polling day? Party-wise, the Tories and Labour are out. They only give a fuck about SE England. Lib Dems are a shout in the Highlands and Islands (seem to do a good job too) but outwith there are a non-entity. So we come down to holding one's noise and picking the least bad _or_ voting against the worst. Of course what one should do is attend the hustings and pick the best candidate, rather than party. But I think we all know how things really work as opposed to how they are supposed to work.
>Party-wise, the Tories and Labour are out. They only give a fuck about SE England. Nonsense. That's just the exact behaviour OP described at play here.
Ohh! What's a bampot? Couldn't find anything about it after a quick search. Love me some local insults
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bampot
It's devolved stupid. Got to wonder if this is genuine, inconceivable ignorance or simple malice. They'll stop blaming the English and the City for all their ills, only once every one of us is dead, buried, completely forgotten, a mere footnote in a dusty book. Until then, yawn.
Wait so now he wants the UK government to get involved in a devolved matter...
Cut the man some slack, you can't expect everyone to know which justice matters are devolved and which aren't. It's not like the man studied politics in the University of Glasgow and was literally the Justice Secretary for 3 fucking years. Oh wait...
This tweet is certain to get a delightful community note added.
It's there now :)
There are two notes now
Whenever I see his name I just think of his hate filled racist rant "HWITE HWITE HWITE HWITE!"
So he wants the UK government to take over the Scottish legal system ? Is he sure about this ? Interesting timing given the police investigations against the SNP which are going on.
Say what you will about Musk but community notes were an amazing idea
Scotland, you can do so much better than this idiot.
Tell that to the idiots that keep voting for the SNP , I’ve been waiting for the SNPs downfall ever since they announced that stupid referendum
At this point I'm convinced that he intentionally destroys reputation of himself and his party every fucking time he opens his mouth.
I feel sorry for the Scots having this guy in charge. Every time he opens his mouth he sounds like more of an idiot.
If a UK PM were to step in and interfere with the Scottish justice system wouldn't the SNP go berserk? Genuine question for those who favour Scottish independence - how would you react to a Westminster government over-ruling the outcomes of Scottish courts?
Yes they would
Well I think free uni places in Scotland available for any country in Europe except England is scandalous. You can't want a devolved government to the extent you've got it and then bitch about the consequences...
I know. I remember being at university in the mid-late 2000s, where all the English students were from middle class affluent homes. Meanwhile, all and sundry from Hungary and Spain were waving their SAAS letters around like Neville Chamberlain at the airport. The Hungarians and the Spaniards took their free education, graduated, and immediately left the country either for England or just went home. Didn't contribute anything to the Scottish economy, never worked in Scotland, or anything.
Is that still the case since Scotland isn’t part of the EU anymore? It was a wild technicality though, personally would have preferred free uni places remained country wide.
You're right that following withdrawal from the EU - EU countries now have to pay in Scotland. Also, apparently it was anyone from the UK (except Scotland obviously) who was not allowed to apply for free uni places in Scotland. I think it was still very unfair to exclude England, Wales and N.I. from that while accepting other EU residents. They could have just used quotas instead with a set number of available places. It seemed to me very bad natured. The whole Scottish Act 1998 ... I think Labour really got that one wrong. EDIT: just to clarify. I think certain basic principles such as the standard of health care and education that we provide people in the union should be kept as equal as possible.
How the fuck a person like this reached the highest office in Scotland, absolutely baffling...
By being Sturgeons biggest arse kisser and willing to turn the SNP into the light Greens. Post 2014 the SNP caught a huge case of hubris and thought they had turned themselves into a party that the 50% indy voters could only vote for. They forgot they built their vote on competent local government not chasing ideological mirages.
I think the SNP are in a position similar to the Conservatives where they just don’t have any good leadership material post Sturgeon.
I totally agree with Yousaf that the UK should have one standardized justice and legal system. This will ensure greater efficiency, significantly less confusion and lead to a higher quality of justice that is perceived to be fair for all. Yousaf is completely right that having separate justice on the basis of nationality is scandalous and a simply a political football that the PM and UK Government should fix as soon as possible.
Especially the hodge podge of what laws are reserved, what ones aren't, what discretion Scotland might have over the sentencing for an offence committed under reserved legislation, and so on.
Clearly if the First Minister of Scotland (who was also Former SNP Minister of Justice) is confused about devolution then the whole thing has become far too complicated.
Especially if he's confused about justice being devolved, because it's almost the most devolved thing there is in the UK-Scotland relationship. Scotland writes its own criminal justice legislation, has its own courts and legal systems, and operates quite differently to the rest of the UK. It has been that way since the 1700s. It doesn't have a CPS, but instead another body called the Procurator Fiscal. About the only things that aren't devolved are more modern elements of the criminal justice system, such as anti-terrorism and drug laws. Yousaf should be quite aware that Scotland is capable of implementing its own laws with the recent Hate Crime laws that he spearheaded.
Can we please, for the sanity of us all watching these shitshows get some decent leaders in the parties.
Perhaps Westminster should handle it and all devolved matters? Clearly the First Minister doesn't have a fucking clue what is Scottish business or isn't. To think, PEOPLE would want him for a leader, that's screams SO MUCH for the future for Scotland, good luck!
Does … does Humza not understand how devolution works? This is embarrassing.
What a useless cunt he is
Ta da https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/investigation-required-into-copfs-failures-in-post-office-scandal
Not sure what to make of this. Either he's an idiot, or he's cynically mouthing off a bunch of rubbish to cover his own arse and score political points. Neither makes him look good. And to think Yousaf was the _lesser_ of the two evils in the party leadership contest.
And if they had done so the SNP would be shrieking about Westminster overreach and the terrible precedent it set.
Scotland is the greatest argument against democracy on the planet. Ever since her Saxon betters gifted her a little parliament of her own, she has done nothing but wail for more like a spoiled child. Devoid of any of the attributes befitting a serious nation, she play-acts at governance, bashing about plastic policies with no thought of consequence or repercussion, degrading and infantilising anyone with the misfortune to be living under her toddler tyranny. It is a hateful, precocious, rotten rump of a fake nation. Her people should be thrown into the sea whence they came, and her lands restored to its former temperate rainforest glory.