Surprised so many Labour voted against- given they brought a similar Bill to Westminster?
Interesting that it seems to transcend party politics
I love when politicians actually get to vote with genuine conscience. It’s lovely to see broad support and opposition across party lines.
This issue has been debated with the respect it deserves too. No culture war bullshit or games.
How I hate what politics has become on most issues.
Surprised but happy at the SNP numbers, most senior SNP MSPs came out against it; Swinney, Forbes, Yousaf, Sturgeon, but the majority of their MSPs supported it.
Who didn’t vote?
JFC. I despair that people are actually naive enough to think politicians are actually voting with their “conscience” on any of this stuff. The vast majority of them, with the exception of ones with an obvious personal stake like the disabled activist Pam Duncan-Glancy, are likely making a calculus based on personal ambition/image or pressure from their constituents.
Isn’t that ironic. The SNP usually says the Tories are for killing the ill
Yet the Tories voted against this overall, whilst the SNP voted for it overwhelmingly
Starting to replace my Tory rage for Labour rage as Tories slide into irrelevancy
A good decision. I don’t feel like the general public are as against it as the MSPs are
I know the government is supposed to be the ones to make the decision, but surely some of this should be put to a whole-of-Scotland public vote? Seems a lot fairer.
Amazed that the majority of SNP voted for and most Labour voted against. As a Labour voter, I will have to admit that this somewhat changes my perception of the SNP, and I am deeply disappointed with Scottish Labour (though I’m still opposed to independence). Now if only the SNP could see about appointing a leader who isn’t a fundamentalist Christian or a Muslim.
It annoys me when politicians say they can’t vote for these issues as “it’s against my conscience” or “I’m a religious person and I oppose it”, much like Swinney stated.
Maybe listen to the people that voted you in and then vote on that result.
I’m pleased to see this bill go ahead, but I have no doubt the religious aspect will come about again.
Disappointed in one of my MSPs.
I wrote to them all and asked them to support and they came back mostly for or against. Fine. I can appreciate a clear answer even if I disagree.
Got one “Uncertain” and even this week he was reiterating his uncertainty but committing to working with everyone over the coming months.
Then votes No. Shutting one side of the conversation down is *not* working with them.
Hey, remember that time that the government legalised killing people and it was met with thunderous applause?
RemindMe! 6 years
Is this even in the remit of Hollyrood?
Watch the UK government swoop in and section 30 the bill, like they did with the DRS
As a supporter of giving people a choice over this, I’m happy with that outcome. People who wouldn’t choose death over terminal illness already have the right to not choose it, people who would choose it should be allowed to choose it.
Labour finding new and exciting ways to be arseholes I see.
I can’t understand why anyone would be against this. Seeing one relative dying of cancer is enough for me to know I would rather go out on my own terms.
As it stands if a loved one was going through it and asked me to help them pass I would take the jail time. I should t have to do that to save their dignity
People here are being too quick to write off all the votes against as purely religious.
Many many disability advocates have cautioned restraint around this bill due to its practical applications as seen in Canada etc that puts anyone with a “life limiting” condition (including mental illness) at risk of being pushed into this due to the stripping of disability benefits, feeling like a burden, familial coercion, etc. In Canada physicians have even recommended it to people who have a manageable condition who didn’t ask about it. Scary stuff with all the other erosion of already limited disability protections. It’s a very nuanced topic when you get past the emotional stuff. The lack of carers, palliative treatment consistency, financial support etc may put undue pressure on terminally ill people to opt for this before they’re actually ready, so even though this bill is very specific to terminally ill (right now) they’re still at risk of those same influencing pressures. Many people would like to see advancements in those areas before seeing this legislation pass. It’s not about denying the right to die just for the sake of it in all instances. The definition of terminally ill in this bill is also causing concern.
Multiple MSPs have voted it through as it’s the first vote but said they wouldn’t vote if it were the final version of the bill. They just think it’s got enough potential that it deserves the opportunity to be amended. But it’s not fit in its current form, largely due to gaps in the above.
All in all I think the debate around this has been as sensitive as the topic deserves & am relieved it hasn’t turned into mud-slinging party politics and soundbitey cross-party attacks. Everyone seems to really be taking this seriously & debating in good faith. It’s refreshing tbh.
one of the few green W’s
Am just glad so many voted for it and hope it will pass through to completion. I’ve watched family die of long painful illnesses and I wish this was an option for them.
22 comments
Surprised so many Labour voted against- given they brought a similar Bill to Westminster?
Interesting that it seems to transcend party politics
I love when politicians actually get to vote with genuine conscience. It’s lovely to see broad support and opposition across party lines.
This issue has been debated with the respect it deserves too. No culture war bullshit or games.
How I hate what politics has become on most issues.
Surprised but happy at the SNP numbers, most senior SNP MSPs came out against it; Swinney, Forbes, Yousaf, Sturgeon, but the majority of their MSPs supported it.
Who didn’t vote?
JFC. I despair that people are actually naive enough to think politicians are actually voting with their “conscience” on any of this stuff. The vast majority of them, with the exception of ones with an obvious personal stake like the disabled activist Pam Duncan-Glancy, are likely making a calculus based on personal ambition/image or pressure from their constituents.
Isn’t that ironic. The SNP usually says the Tories are for killing the ill
Yet the Tories voted against this overall, whilst the SNP voted for it overwhelmingly
Starting to replace my Tory rage for Labour rage as Tories slide into irrelevancy
A good decision. I don’t feel like the general public are as against it as the MSPs are
I know the government is supposed to be the ones to make the decision, but surely some of this should be put to a whole-of-Scotland public vote? Seems a lot fairer.
Amazed that the majority of SNP voted for and most Labour voted against. As a Labour voter, I will have to admit that this somewhat changes my perception of the SNP, and I am deeply disappointed with Scottish Labour (though I’m still opposed to independence). Now if only the SNP could see about appointing a leader who isn’t a fundamentalist Christian or a Muslim.
It annoys me when politicians say they can’t vote for these issues as “it’s against my conscience” or “I’m a religious person and I oppose it”, much like Swinney stated.
Maybe listen to the people that voted you in and then vote on that result.
I’m pleased to see this bill go ahead, but I have no doubt the religious aspect will come about again.
Disappointed in one of my MSPs.
I wrote to them all and asked them to support and they came back mostly for or against. Fine. I can appreciate a clear answer even if I disagree.
Got one “Uncertain” and even this week he was reiterating his uncertainty but committing to working with everyone over the coming months.
Then votes No. Shutting one side of the conversation down is *not* working with them.
Hey, remember that time that the government legalised killing people and it was met with thunderous applause?
RemindMe! 6 years
Is this even in the remit of Hollyrood?
Watch the UK government swoop in and section 30 the bill, like they did with the DRS
As a supporter of giving people a choice over this, I’m happy with that outcome. People who wouldn’t choose death over terminal illness already have the right to not choose it, people who would choose it should be allowed to choose it.
Labour finding new and exciting ways to be arseholes I see.
I can’t understand why anyone would be against this. Seeing one relative dying of cancer is enough for me to know I would rather go out on my own terms.
As it stands if a loved one was going through it and asked me to help them pass I would take the jail time. I should t have to do that to save their dignity
People here are being too quick to write off all the votes against as purely religious.
Many many disability advocates have cautioned restraint around this bill due to its practical applications as seen in Canada etc that puts anyone with a “life limiting” condition (including mental illness) at risk of being pushed into this due to the stripping of disability benefits, feeling like a burden, familial coercion, etc. In Canada physicians have even recommended it to people who have a manageable condition who didn’t ask about it. Scary stuff with all the other erosion of already limited disability protections. It’s a very nuanced topic when you get past the emotional stuff. The lack of carers, palliative treatment consistency, financial support etc may put undue pressure on terminally ill people to opt for this before they’re actually ready, so even though this bill is very specific to terminally ill (right now) they’re still at risk of those same influencing pressures. Many people would like to see advancements in those areas before seeing this legislation pass. It’s not about denying the right to die just for the sake of it in all instances. The definition of terminally ill in this bill is also causing concern.
Multiple MSPs have voted it through as it’s the first vote but said they wouldn’t vote if it were the final version of the bill. They just think it’s got enough potential that it deserves the opportunity to be amended. But it’s not fit in its current form, largely due to gaps in the above.
All in all I think the debate around this has been as sensitive as the topic deserves & am relieved it hasn’t turned into mud-slinging party politics and soundbitey cross-party attacks. Everyone seems to really be taking this seriously & debating in good faith. It’s refreshing tbh.
one of the few green W’s
Am just glad so many voted for it and hope it will pass through to completion. I’ve watched family die of long painful illnesses and I wish this was an option for them.
Comments are closed.