So the runners and riders are...

[One Day Soon]

As long as there is discord and chaos in Westminster it will always be in the table and forefront in Scottish politics. We are of course capable of addressing both that and day to day running of the country. The Scottish election results will reveal a lot about how we are all feeling. I must say with the SNP a shoe in once again the dearth of real talent coming forward to lead it leaves me thoroughly depressed to be honest. Politics in the UK as a whole is a basket case.

I don't think the shoe-in issue is going to be a problem for much longer.

[James310]

Advancing the case will accomplish nothing anyway. Courts in England with judges put into position by nobody in Scotland have made sure of that.

So give up then? You seriously have no ideas on how Independence can be advanced and you blame everyone else for it not advancing?

Seriously though you won't get anywhere if you think everyone and everything is some kind of conspiracy to get you or get the SNP or whoever it is.

These courts in England you talk of are I assume the Supreme Court of the UK? The same one of that ruled the UK Government acted illegally regarding Brexit?

[Ozyhibby]

I could understand a Leader and Deputy not wanting to endorse candidates to avoid accusations of influencing others decisions. Just thought the MP would state her reasons or there was maybe an obvious reason I was unaware of.

https://twitter.com/kirstysnp/status/1627630977622188033?s=46&t=MRvRyy0TP-zyE3hh9gymBg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

Advancing the case will accomplish nothing anyway. Courts in England with judges put into position by nobody in Scotland have made sure of that.

If I'm reading this right, the FM (along with others) is listed as a requirement to be consulted with by the Selection Committee before judges are appointmented to the Supreme Court. Happy to be corrected.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html

[Santa Cruz]

https://twitter.com/kirstysnp/status/1627630977622188033?s=46&t=MRvRyy0TP-zyE3hh9gymBg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Still nothing obvious. It's no biggie, was just curious.

[James310]

If I'm reading this right, the FM (along with others) is listed as a requirement to be consulted with by the Selection Committee before judges are appointmented to the Supreme Court. Happy to be corrected.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html

Wait until he hears what Nicola Sturgeon did when the Queen died.

"Nicola Sturgeon becomes the first First Minister in history to sign a proclamation document… the Acts of Union and Scotland’s constitutional tie to England loom large in this moment."

[Stairway 2 7]

Conor Matchett
@conor_matchett
There are murmurings, no more than rumblings, that there could - possibly, maybe - be a late entrant into the SNP leadership race

All very undecided yet, it's fair to say

[Colr]

Faith involves continuing to believe in-spite of any evidence to the contrary.

Your welcome to have faith in a free country but I’m not sure I would want that mindset in someone taking decisions that affect my life.

[Just_Jimmy]

Whys Mairi McAllan not mentioned? Am I missing something? From the outside, as in not living in Scotland, I've thought she was a bright prospect

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

Whys Mairi McAllan not mentioned? Am I missing something? From the outside, as in not living in Scotland, I've thought she was a bright prospect

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

Decided it was too soon after being elected as an MSP for the first time at the last election. She's endorsed Humza.

[Crunchie]

Whys Mairi McAllan not mentioned? Am I missing something? From the outside, as in not living in Scotland, I've thought she was a bright prospect

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
10/1 with Skybet and Betfred if you fancy a punt

[Just_Jimmy]

10/1 with Skybet and Betfred if you fancy a punt10/1 in a 3 horse (donkey?) Race?

If she stands maybe!

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

[Crunchie]

10/1 in a 3 horse (donkey?) Race?

If she stands maybe!

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
Believe it or not there's 18 names on the list, Mhairi Black is 16/1 with Ladbrokes, Angus Robertson 20's :greengrin

[He's here!]

Forbes tells Sky she's continuing 'for the moment'. Think it's pretty clear what that means.

She's received Kemi Badenoch's backing for her honesty tho...

[Mr Grieves]

Whys Mairi McAllan not mentioned? Am I missing something? From the outside, as in not living in Scotland, I've thought she was a bright prospect

Sent from my SM-G991B using TapatalkRuled herself out.

When Sturgeon resigned I hoped it would be her or Robertson that would be next.


Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk

[James310]

Mairi McAllan is waiting to come in and tidy up in a few years time.

[Crunchie]

Mairi McAllan is waiting to come in and tidy up in a few years time.
I suspect there's more than her with that idea. 1 or 2 from Westminster especially.

[Mr Grieves]

Mairi McAllan is waiting to come in and tidy up in a few years time.One for the obsessive creeps in a few years time.

Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk

[BroxburnHibee]

Conor Matchett
@conor_matchett
There are murmurings, no more than rumblings, that there could - possibly, maybe - be a late entrant into the SNP leadership race

All very undecided yet, it's fair to say

Wonder if Robertson has had a change of heart

[Hibrandenburg]

I agree. We're lucky it's Scotland and not the US where Humza's faith would be weaponised.

People's lack of faith gets weaponised. There's enough voters out there who won't vote for someone who isn't religious or of the wrong religion, but somehow it's those people who wouldn't vote for someone because of religion that are the bigots.

[heretoday]

It's not very dignified

@mireille_pouget
"Mr Yousaf himself requested a meeting with the Pakistan Consul General in Glasgow on the day of the vote, thereby creating a clash

https://archive.ph/kcakn

He seems to have squared away his Islamic faith with his political stance.
Last time I checked, Islam didn't have good things to say about gay people, far less gay marriage!

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64727297

Today's front pages look even worse than yesterday's for Forbes.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64727297

Today's front pages look even worse than yesterday's for Forbes.

I think she will pull out today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64727297

Today's front pages look even worse than yesterday's for Forbes.

I think her honesty is refreshing and honourable, and by all accounts she's an intelligent person who does a good job so there's a place for her within the government, but not as FM. She's entitled to believe in what she believes in, but it means she isn't suitable to be the FM of Scotland.

[easty]

I think she will pull out today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which is a fitting tribute to her stance on unmarried couples…

[Kato]

Which is a fitting tribute to her stance on unmarried couples…....Haymarket will be heaving with ex-SNP leadership contenders...

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[ElginHibbie]

Mairi McAllan is waiting to come in and tidy up in a few years time.

I honestly think there are a few who know that whoever gets it just now is in for a rough ride and standing next time round is the better bet.

See Ben Macpherson saying he isn't gonna stand, wouldn't surprise me if he, Mairi and Robertson all thinking along these lines

[Berwickhibby]

Which is a fitting tribute to her stance on unmarried couples…

:faf::faf: I genuinely had a right chuckle

[He's here!]

I think her honesty is refreshing and honourable, and by all accounts she's an intelligent person who does a good job so there's a place for her within the government, but not as FM. She's entitled to believe in what she believes in, but it means she isn't suitable to be the FM of Scotland.

I agree she's entitled to her beliefs and the right to express them. However, making such beliefs so public puts her so hugely out of step with her supposedly progressive party that she couldn't possibly hope to command respect as leader.

Does seem a tad odd that her backers who are now rushing to disassociate themselves from her would not have factored this in beforehand.

[He's here!]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/21/forbes-doubles-down-and-torpedoes-snp-chances-pass-the-idiot-pills

[Sergio sledge]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64727297

Today's front pages look even worse than yesterday's for Forbes.

I understand the questioning on the GRR, it's a current issue.

To some extent I understand the questioning on same sex marriage, although it's a settled issue and won't be changed, so it doesn't really matter how she would have voted on it, I think the line of questioning was simply the press trying to get her to say something controversial and she fell into the trap.

We now have them questioning her on sex outside marriage and children born to unmarried parents. What possible impact does her views on that have on her ability to run the country? Also, the headlines saying she thinks it is "wrong" are a complete distortion of what she said, she said it was wrong "for her" but what other people did was none of her business and not up to her and that she celebrates every child born, no matter the circumstances.

This is where I think the witch hunt has started to stray into persecution of her because of her religion. They are now picking apart her theology and how she lives her life to try to take her down. It's not relevant to her FM bid and just a pile on now on someone who has views on things which are different to the majority but is quite clear that they are simply how she lives her life and have no impact on anyone else.

To be fair though, she should have known this was coming and should have been better prepped to answer things in a better way. I appreciate her honesty and candour, but she could have been honest without directly answering the questions. E.g. on the gay marriage vote something like "An MSP is elected to serve and represent their constituents, I wasn't and MSP at the time so wasn't able to canvas my constituents to ascertain how I should vote to represent them so I can't answer that question on way or the other.." the reality is her predecessor as MSP in her constituency voted against it and the likelyhood is that in her constituency there would have been a significant voice telling her to vote against it at the time (I suspect that would be different if the vote was today), but the interviewer doesn't need to know that.

I don't think her campaign lasts much longer though. I don't think she wants to quit, but I suspect there will be enough pressure brought to bear on her that she has to.

If so I think she'll have to resign from the SNP, and it will be interesting to see if she continues in politics e.g. joining the Alba party, or jacks it in altogether.

I wonder if we'll also see a few more defections to the Alba party over this, as I think the way she's been abandoned by her supposed allies in the party is really bad. They all knew her and what she stood for in her personal life when they helped her get to her position as finance secretary so they can't and shouldn't just abandon her now.

I see HY has gone from effusive praise of KF the day before yesterday and wanting her involved in future governments to now saying she shouldn't be involved, again he must have known her beliefs before now, so how can he flip flop so wildly.

[archie]

I agree she's entitled to her beliefs and the right to express them. However, making such beliefs so public puts her so hugely out of step with her supposedly progressive party that she couldn't possibly hope to command respect as leader.

Does seem a tad odd that her backers who are now rushing to disassociate themselves from her would not have factored this in beforehand.

I wonder if there's a campaign by the SNP establishment to get her out of the contest before it goes to members? This is interesting on party membership views https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-do-snp-members-think-of-kate-forbess-views/

[Ozyhibby]

I understand the questioning on the GRR, it's a current issue.

To some extent I understand the questioning on same sex marriage, although it's a settled issue and won't be changed, so it doesn't really matter how she would have voted on it, I think the line of questioning was simply the press trying to get her to say something controversial and she fell into the trap.

We now have them questioning her on sex outside marriage and children born to unmarried parents. What possible impact does her views on that have on her ability to run the country? Also, the headlines saying she thinks it is "wrong" are a complete distortion of what she said, she said it was wrong "for her" but what other people did was none of her business and not up to her and that she celebrates every child born, no matter the circumstances.

This is where I think the witch hunt has started to stray into persecution of her because of her religion. They are now picking apart her theology and how she lives her life to try to take her down. It's not relevant to her FM bid and just a pile on now on someone who has views on things which are different to the majority but is quite clear that they are simply how she lives her life and have no impact on anyone else.

To be fair though, she should have known this was coming and should have been better prepped to answer things in a better way. I appreciate her honesty and candour, but she could have been honest without directly answering the questions. E.g. on the gay marriage vote something like "An MSP is elected to serve and represent their constituents, I wasn't and MSP at the time so wasn't able to canvas my constituents to ascertain how I should vote to represent them so I can't answer that question on way or the other.." the reality is her predecessor as MSP in her constituency voted against it and the likelyhood is that in her constituency there would have been a significant voice telling her to vote against it at the time (I suspect that would be different if the vote was today), but the interviewer doesn't need to know that.

I don't think her campaign lasts much longer though. I don't think she wants to quit, but I suspect there will be enough pressure brought to bear on her that she has to.

If so I think she'll have to resign from the SNP, and it will be interesting to see if she continues in politics e.g. joining the Alba party, or jacks it in altogether.

I wonder if we'll also see a few more defections to the Alba party over this, as I think the way she's been abandoned by her supposed allies in the party is really bad. They all knew her and what she stood for in her personal life when they helped her get to her position as finance secretary so they can't and shouldn't just abandon her now.

I see HY has gone from effusive praise of KF the day before yesterday and wanting her involved in future governments to now saying she shouldn't be involved, again he must have known her beliefs before now, so how can he flip flop so wildly.

You can know someone’s believes but believe that they are capable of keeping them separate from their job and politics.
Her beliefs are not really a problem for me but her answers have not convinced they would not get in the way of doing her job for all of Scotland. Yousaf has done that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

I think her honesty is refreshing and honourable, and by all accounts she's an intelligent person who does a good job so there's a place for her within the government, but not as FM. She's entitled to believe in what she believes in, but it means she isn't suitable to be the FM of Scotland.What other factors do you think would make an honourable intelligent person who does a good job unsuitable for FM? Or is it only devout Christians who can't be FM?

[grunt]

This is where I think the witch hunt has started to stray into persecution of her because of her religion.

... I think the way she's been abandoned by her supposed allies in the party is really bad. They all knew her and what she stood for in her personal life when they helped her get to her position as finance secretary so they can't and shouldn't just abandon her now.

Agreed. Really disappointed in the whole party, to be honest. Independence is gone.

[heretoday]

Agreed. Really disappointed in the whole party, to be honest. Independence is gone.

That's showbiz!

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Agreed. Really disappointed in the whole party, to be honest. Independence is gone.

The party isn't independence, so no it isn't.

[Ozyhibby]

Agreed. Really disappointed in the whole party, to be honest. Independence is gone.

It really isn’t. Forbes just isn’t up to the task.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

The party isn't independence, so no it isn't.

But the SNP have made themselves the Independence movement and it was about power and control. It's hard to separate them now and it would take years to do so.

How many Independence marches did Nicola Sturgeon attend over the years? Maybe 1?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

But the SNP have made themselves the Independence movement and it was about power and control. It's hard to separate them now and it would take years to do so.

How many Independence marches did Nicola Sturgeon attend over the years? Maybe 1?

No political party can make themselves the movement. The movement is it's own thing in which parties are welcome to be a part of if/when they choose.

Your second point makes that clear.

[Since90+2]

Agreed. Really disappointed in the whole party, to be honest. Independence is gone.

Agreed, I've only ever voted SNP but the last few months for me have left a really sour taste..

Unless something dramatic changes , they won't be getting my vote at the next election, and I would imagine I won't be alone in that thinking.

[danhibees1875]

What other factors do you think would make an honourable intelligent person who does a good job unsuitable for FM? Or is it only devout Christians who can't be FM?

A well built strawman about religion. :aok:

Not remotely bothered if she's Christian, devout or otherwise, or not. But if she would actively have voted against allowing same-sex marriage then she isn't suitable for the role as FM, IMO.

I'm not going to list out what other beliefs people could have that would subsequently put them into the bracket of being unsuitable - but I'll try to give some yes/no answers to any hypothetical ones you have, if that's what you're after.

[grunt]

Here's a list of MSPs who ACTUALLY (not theoretically) voted against same sex marriage. #BurnTheWitches

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpkH1naWAAIb7-p?format=png&name=small

[grunt]

I'm not going to list out what other beliefs people could have that would subsequently put them into the bracket of being unsuitable ...
So, in the absence of other factors, just people who are against gay marriage then.

I thought Scotland was supposed to be this home to liberal thinking? I thought we valued people based on who they are and not what they think or believe?

Oh well, here's to the rest of my life living in a vassal state to the Tory/Labour Great British Brexit Union, in a UK alone and lonely in the world. And without tomatoes.

[Ozyhibby]

It’s not really about religion is it? She is telling people how she would vote in parliament on certain issues and people are deciding that is not for them so are not supporting her. That exactly how democracy works.
I was keen for her to run and knew roughly of her beliefs but assumed she would be like Yousaf and show she could separate them. She hasn’t been able to do that.
It should come as no surprise that people are finding they do not like someone who is clearly very judgemental.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Here's a list of MSPs who ACTUALLY (not theoretically) voted against same sex marriage. #BurnTheWitches

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpkH1naWAAIb7-p?format=png&name=small

And how are their political careers fairing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ElginHibbie]

And how are their political careers fairing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Murdo Fraser at least still going strong sadly

[Pretty Boy]

Here's a list of MSPs who ACTUALLY (not theoretically) voted against same sex marriage. #BurnTheWitches

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpkH1naWAAIb7-p?format=png&name=small

I think bringing back burning at the stake might be a bit strong.

I wouldn't vote for any of them though.

[danhibees1875]

So, in the absence of other factors, just people who are against gay marriage then.

I thought Scotland was supposed to be this home to liberal thinking? I thought we valued people based on who they are and not what they think or believe?

Oh well, here's to the rest of my life living in a vassal state to the Tory/Labour Great British Brexit Union, in a UK alone and lonely in the world. And without tomatoes.

I don't think if you are against same-sex marriage that you should be the FM.

I'm not really sure what most of your post, or the previous one, was trying to say so I'll just state that as plainly as possible.

I have some tomatoes in the fridge.

[Ozyhibby]

I think bringing back burning at the stake might be a bit strong.

I wouldn't vote for any of them though.

That’s exactly what’s important here. You are free to have any opinion you like in Scotland but if you want elected then you need opinions that are acceptable to a sizeable chunk of the electorate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Murdo Fraser at least still going strong sadly

But even the Tories wouldn’t put him in charge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

That’s exactly what’s important here. You are free to have any opinion you like in Scotland but if you want elected then you need opinions that are acceptable to a sizeable chunk of the electorate.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWhich electorate?

[Ozyhibby]

Which electorate?

Whichever electorate you are looking to get elected from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Whichever electorate you are looking to get elected from.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThe reason I ask is that there may be a disconnect between SNP activists, SNP members and the wider public.

[J-C]

But the SNP have made themselves the Independence movement and it was about power and control. It's hard to separate them now and it would take years to do so.

How many Independence marches did Nicola Sturgeon attend over the years? Maybe 1?

The Greens Alba, Independence for Scotland are just 3 of the top of my head.

[G15 Hibs]

So, in the absence of other factors, just people who are against gay marriage then.

I thought Scotland was supposed to be this home to liberal thinking? I thought we valued people based on who they are and not what they think or believe?

Oh well, here's to the rest of my life living in a vassal state to the Tory/Labour Great British Brexit Union, in a UK alone and lonely in the world. And without tomatoes.

What people think and believe is a massive part of who they are, no?

[Ozyhibby]

The reason I ask is that there may be a disconnect between SNP activists, SNP members and the wider public.

Very true but I’m not even sure she could get elected leader of the Tory party with her views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steven79]

Very true but I’m not even sure she could get elected leader of the Tory party with her views.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkShe's got more right wing views than many Tories but seems oblivious to this.

That's the danger of religion as otherwise she would probably be the main candidate but it's scewed her thought process with dogma.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Very true but I’m not even sure she could get elected leader of the Tory party with her views."Her views" didn't stop her being elected MSP for Skye Lochaber and Badenoch? "Her views" didn't stop her getting appointed as Minister for Finance and the Economy? When did you ever notice "her views" get in the way of her work? When were "her views" ever a topic for discussion in the papers, in tv interviews?

She's been dumped on by a hostile media making a mountain out of a molehill, and she's been (or is in the process of being) abandoned by her so-called colleagues and allies in the SNP.

It's a witch hunt, and it's working, and it is awful to watch.

[grunt]

She's got more right wing views than many Tories but seems oblivious to this.Well I'm oblivious to it for sure. What right wing views does she hold do you think? Any examples?

[archie]

"Her views" didn't stop her being elected MSP for Skye Lochaber and Badenoch? "Her views" didn't stop her getting appointed as Minister for Finance and the Economy? When did you ever notice "her views" get in the way of her work? When were "her views" ever a topic for discussion in the papers, in tv interviews?

She's been dumped on by a hostile media making a mountain out of a molehill, and she's been (or is in the process of being) abandoned by her so-called colleagues and allies in the SNP.

It's a witch hunt, and it's working, and it is awful to watch.The thing I don't understand is how much of a 'surprise' her views are to her fellow colleagues. Did they really not know?

[Stonewall]

Sorry if this has been raised already but why has Humza Yousaf not faced the same grilling over his religious beliefs as Kate Forbes.

Personally I don’t care about anyone’s beliefs as long as they actively don’t think god is telling them what to do. I think she has made the point she will honour democratic decisions citing the example of Merkel who voted against gay marriage but still implemented the legislation. Not sure what else anyone wants.

[archie]

I don't think if you are against same-sex marriage that you should be the FM.

I'm not really sure what most of your post, or the previous one, was trying to say so I'll just state that as plainly as possible.

I have some tomatoes in the fridge.Can you have a view that something isn't for you, but tolerate it for others?

[grunt]

I was keen for her to run and knew roughly of her beliefs but assumed she would be like Yousaf and show she could separate them. She hasn’t been able to do that.
It should come as no surprise that people are finding they do not like someone who is clearly very judgemental.:greengrin

I was just going to post a laughing smiley at the irony of someone in this discussion accusing Forbes of being judgemental. But I'll go a bit further and say that in all the interviews I've heard of her, she says that others are entitled to their views ad she accepts the democratic choice of the majority. She doesn't impose her religious views on others. I don't think she's the judgmental one here.

[Ozyhibby]

Sorry if this has been raised already but why has Humza Yousaf not faced the same grilling over his religious beliefs as Kate Forbes.

Personally I don’t care about anyone’s beliefs as long as they actively don’t think god is telling them what to do. I think she has made the point she will honour democratic decisions citing the example of Merkel who voted against gay marriage but still implemented the legislation. Not sure what else anyone wants.

He was asked all the same questions but pointed out that he is supportive of gay marriage, voted for gender reform and has no problem with unmarried people having children. I saw him being asked on STV on Tuesday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

The thing I don't understand is how much of a 'surprise' her views are to her fellow colleagues. Did they really not know?
I think the surprise has been the level of vitriol from the press and the pile ons on social media. I think they're running scared of being associated with her. Which is not the SNP I thought I was voting for, but hey.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64729962

Swinney questions Forbes' suitability to be FM.

[Ozyhibby]

:greengrin

I was just going to post a laughing smiley at the irony of someone in this discussion accusing Forbes of being judgemental. But I'll go a bit further and say that in all the interviews I've heard of her, she says that others are entitled to their views ad she accepts the democratic choice of the majority. She doesn't impose her religious views on others. I don't think she's the judgmental one here.

As a voter I’m supposed to be judgemental. The candidates have put themselves forward to be judged. As I’ve said before, her views are not so much a worry as her inability to separate it from her politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

Can you have a view that something isn't for you, but tolerate it for others?

You mean if she would vote for same-sex marriage but not herself marry another woman? Yes, she could have done that.

[SHODAN]

For all the braying and screeching about cancel culture and anti-religion, it's clear that the unambiguous, repeatedly forced narrative is this:

Having beliefs that would be considered bigoted or exclusionary are fine, actually
You should never take into account bigoted beliefs when choosing to vote for someone, rather some abstract notion of "performance" or "record"
People who criticise other people for having bigoted beliefs, or even merely point them out, are worse than people that hold bigoted beliefs, even if they are the target of those bigoted beliefs


I do not think someone that disagrees with (1) gay marriage and (2) children outside of wedlock should be the leader of a progressive country, let alone my country, and I would not vote for them. It is amazing that the narrative that is being pushed is that I am a bad person for stating this, that criticising these specific views mean I am somehow anti-religion when those views are not emblematic of all adherents to said religion.

Oh, and by the way? I was born out of wedlock. My child will be born out of wedlock. This rhetoric affects ME and MY FAMILY. I feel victimised by it. Where's the pieces defending my right and my family's right not to be thought of as the product of sin by someone who is running for leader of my country? I don't care that they didn't lie about not holding those beliefs, the point is THEY HOLD THOSE BELIEFS. Well done, you get brownie points for being honest about your bigotry. It still makes you a bigot.

[grunt]

As a voter I’m supposed to be judgemental. The candidates have put themselves forward to be judged. As I’ve said before, her views are not so much a worry as her inability to separate it from her politics.
There are loads of other politicians who voted against gay marriage or who are followers of religions that have anti-homosexual views. They are not being crucified in the media. What makes her different?

[ElginHibbie]

For all the braying and screeching about cancel culture and anti-religion, it's clear that the unambiguous, repeatedly forced narrative is this:

Having beliefs that would be considered bigoted or exclusionary are fine, actually
You should never take into account bigoted beliefs when choosing to vote for someone, rather some abstract notion of "performance" or "record"
People who criticise other people for having bigoted beliefs, or even merely point them out, are worse than people that hold bigoted beliefs, even if they are the target of those bigoted beliefs


I do not think someone that disagrees with (1) gay marriage and (2) children outside of wedlock should be the leader of a progressive country, let alone my country, and I would not vote for them. It is amazing that the narrative that is being pushed is that I am a bad person for stating this, that criticising these specific views mean I am somehow anti-religion when those views are not emblematic of all adherents to said religion.

Oh, and by the way? I was born out of wedlock. My child will be born out of wedlock. This rhetoric affects ME and MY FAMILY. I feel victimised by it. Where's the pieces defending my right and my family's right not to be thought of as the product of sin by someone who is running for leader of my country? I don't care that they didn't lie about not holding those beliefs, the point is THEY HOLD THOSE BELIEFS. Well done, you get brownie points for being honest about your bigotry. It still makes you a bigot.

You can **** off with your "anti-Christian" *****. It's performative gaslighting and bad faith bull****.

:top marks

[grunt]

You can **** off with your "anti-Christian" *****. It's performative gaslighting and bad faith bull****.
I guess that's me off your Christmas card list then?

[Ozyhibby]

There are loads of other politicians who voted against gay marriage or who are followers of religions that have anti-homosexual views. They are not being crucified in the media. What makes her different?

The media is different from me giving her my support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[heretoday]

What's the difference between gay marriage and civil partnership?
Quick answer. Don't google it!

[SHODAN]

I guess that's me off your Christmas card list then?

Not at all, so long as you don't mind me putting Happy Holidays on it. :wink:

I am removing that part of the post though because it was unnecessary and based off frustration.

[Hibs4185]

I’m not advocating for Forbes as the new FM as I don’t really know enough about her but I found it strange the amount of negativity she was receiving from all sides yesterday.

Especially from people who preach about liberal values and acceptance but can’t accept other people’s beliefs and values.

Although Forbes has said same sex and transgender laws aren’t for her, from what I’ve read she’s perfectly tolerant and understanding that in a liberal Scotland that’s what’s right.

I quite like that she is open and sticks up for her beliefs rather than all these wishy washy politicians that just give nothing answers to questions

[Santa Cruz]

What's the difference between gay marriage and civil partnership?
Quick answer. Don't google it!

You don't have to be same sex to enter into a civil partnership, it's an alternative to a religous blessing of marriage?? (don't know if blessing is the correect word, typed quick to resist googling :greengrin)

[Santa Cruz]

I’m not advocating for Forbes as the new FM as I don’t really know enough about her but I found it strange the amount of negativity she was receiving from all sides yesterday.

Especially from people who preach about liberal values and acceptance but can’t accept other people’s beliefs and values.

Although Forbes has said same sex and transgender laws aren’t for her, from what I’ve read she’s perfectly tolerant and understanding that in a liberal Scotland that’s what’s right.

I quite like that she is open and sticks up for her beliefs rather than all these wishy washy politicians that just give nothing answers to questions

With you there and I'm an unmarried Mother.

[Ozyhibby]

I’m not advocating for Forbes as the new FM as I don’t really know enough about her but I found it strange the amount of negativity she was receiving from all sides yesterday.

Especially from people who preach about liberal values and acceptance but can’t accept other people’s beliefs and values.

Although Forbes has said same sex and transgender laws aren’t for her, from what I’ve read she’s perfectly tolerant and understanding that in a liberal Scotland that’s what’s right.

I quite like that she is open and sticks up for her beliefs rather than all these wishy washy politicians that just give nothing answers to questions

Being liberal doesn’t mean you have to support illiberal people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SHODAN]

I’m not advocating for Forbes as the new FM as I don’t really know enough about her but I found it strange the amount of negativity she was receiving from all sides yesterday.

Especially from people who preach about liberal values and acceptance but can’t accept other people’s beliefs and values.

Although Forbes has said same sex and transgender laws aren’t for her, from what I’ve read she’s perfectly tolerant and understanding that in a liberal Scotland that’s what’s right.

I quite like that she is open and sticks up for her beliefs rather than all these wishy washy politicians that just give nothing answers to questions

I would like a politician leading a progressive party that (1) has progressive beliefs and (2) is open about them.

We just had one. She resigned. There's plenty more.

[SHODAN]

Being liberal doesn’t mean you have to support illiberal people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:agree:

https://i.imgur.com/lTfkbCh.png

[Santa Cruz]

I would like a politician leading a progressive party that (1) has progressive beliefs and (2) is open about them.

We just had one. She resigned. There's plenty more.

Where are they then, why aren't they standing as candidates?

[neil7908]

"Her views" didn't stop her being elected MSP for Skye Lochaber and Badenoch? "Her views" didn't stop her getting appointed as Minister for Finance and the Economy? When did you ever notice "her views" get in the way of her work? When were "her views" ever a topic for discussion in the papers, in tv interviews?

She's been dumped on by a hostile media making a mountain out of a molehill, and she's been (or is in the process of being) abandoned by her so-called colleagues and allies in the SNP.

It's a witch hunt, and it's working, and it is awful to watch.

It's most definitely not a witch hunt. That would imply people have gone out of their way to target her for things that are not true.

That's absolutely not the case. As you yourself say, she has been getting on with her job for years without anyone going after her.

She and she alone then chose to apply for the job as leader. Literally the most power job in Scotland where she has massive sway over nearly every facet of our lives.

And guess what? She's getting asked some difficult questions about her views on matters that are very important to a huge chunk of the country and will impact on how she would lead. The other candidates are being asked the same questions but their responses are in line with the majority of Scots in 2023, and this is rightly being called out.

[neil7908]

I’m not advocating for Forbes as the new FM as I don’t really know enough about her but I found it strange the amount of negativity she was receiving from all sides yesterday.

Especially from people who preach about liberal values and acceptance but can’t accept other people’s beliefs and values.

Although Forbes has said same sex and transgender laws aren’t for her, from what I’ve read she’s perfectly tolerant and understanding that in a liberal Scotland that’s what’s right.

I quite like that she is open and sticks up for her beliefs rather than all these wishy washy politicians that just give nothing answers to questions

I believe that she won't repeal existing protections. But what about bringing forward new ones? The point is if same sex marriage was being legislated today she would vote against it. Despite it having overwhelming support from the majority of Scots, who she's supposed to represent.

Equality and civil rights issues are not 'solved' - there is much more to be done. What about when the next 'same sex marriage' type issue comes up? We know the answer - she won't vote on what Scots want, she will vote based on what her scripture says.

Those defending her want to take a narrative of things being in the past, as if it's not a live issue. Which is total nonsense.

[Ozyhibby]

I believe that she won't repeal existing protections. But what about bringing forward new ones? The point is if same sex marriage was being legislated today she would vote against it. Despite it having overwhelming support from the majority of Scots, who she's supposed to represent.

Equality and civil rights issues are not 'solved' - there is much more to be done. What about when the next 'same sex marriage' type issue comes up? We know the answer - she won't vote on what Scots want, she will vote based on what her scripture says.

Those defending her want to take a narrative of things being in the past, as if it's not a live issue. Which is total nonsense.

If she is FM then the vote might never happen as her govt may have other priorities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[allmodcons]

I'll be voting for Kate Forbes because I think she is the best candidate for the job and, for me, Humza Yousaf does not have the personality or skill set to be a successful leader.

I do not agree with her stance on gay marriage but do not think she is a bigot. She has an attachment to a certain set of beliefs but no way can she be described as antagonistic towards the gay community.

No doubt she has made a big mistake talking as openly as she has about her religious views and, ultimately, could see her challenge derailed as a consequence.

I am disappointed by the reaction of a number of senior SNP MSPs and MPs who, in my opinion, must have known all about Kate Forbes' religious views before she was appointed Finance Secretary and lauded by these very same individuals as the next great thing.

I lived (in sin apparently) with my wife before we got married and had kids. From what I've heard her say, Kate Forbes does not have a problem with this it's just something she (personally) would not choose to do.

For what it's worth, the usual the media pile on is just ridiculous. Writers at rags like the Daily Record moralising just makes me sick.

[Sergio sledge]

For all the braying and screeching about cancel culture and anti-religion, it's clear that the unambiguous, repeatedly forced narrative is this:

Having beliefs that would be considered bigoted or exclusionary are fine, actually
You should never take into account bigoted beliefs when choosing to vote for someone, rather some abstract notion of "performance" or "record"
People who criticise other people for having bigoted beliefs, or even merely point them out, are worse than people that hold bigoted beliefs, even if they are the target of those bigoted beliefs


I do not think someone that disagrees with (1) gay marriage and (2) children outside of wedlock should be the leader of a progressive country, let alone my country, and I would not vote for them. It is amazing that the narrative that is being pushed is that I am a bad person for stating this, that criticising these specific views mean I am somehow anti-religion when those views are not emblematic of all adherents to said religion.

Oh, and by the way? I was born out of wedlock. My child will be born out of wedlock. This rhetoric affects ME and MY FAMILY. I feel victimised by it. Where's the pieces defending my right and my family's right not to be thought of as the product of sin by someone who is running for leader of my country? I don't care that they didn't lie about not holding those beliefs, the point is THEY HOLD THOSE BELIEFS. Well done, you get brownie points for being honest about your bigotry. It still makes you a bigot.

I must be reading different things to you because I haven't seen much of the narrative you describe, plenty of people saying what you are saying though and it is your right to vote for whoever you want. It doesn't make you a bad person if you disagree with a candidate's views and find them disgusting and decide not to vote for them.

My issue has been twofold,
1. Her backers in the SNP who suddenly pull out of backing her when they see the public reaction to her views. Given how open she's been with her views in the past it can't have come as a surprise to them that she holds them or that she's honest enough to admit to them. They're at best naïve, at worst spineless hypocrites just doing what they think they need to do to save their own back.
2. The line of questioning from the press is verging on being anti-christian, whatever that means, as I mentioned in a previous post. I can understand questioning on the GRR and on same sex marriage (although this is a settled issue she can and will do nothing about changing), but questioning her on her views of sex outside marriage etc. Seems like a gratuitous pile on given how irrelevant it is to how she would run the country.

As I said previously though, this is democracy in action and she'll ultimately be judged by the party membership as to whether they think she's suitable or not. It's looking very unlikely at this stage and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

I've a couple of questions for you though, and I hope you don't take these the wrong way, I'm genuinely curious so please don't take offence. What would you describe your position in relation to religion? Atheist, Agnostic, Believer in something? Lapsed believer in something? Etc?

I'm just curious as to why someone's belief that something is a "sin" according to their god would cause so much anger and hurt to someone who, forgive me if I'm wrong, doesn't appear to hold any belief in the same god? I'm also curious as to how someone saying that something is wrong for them (because of their belief in a god) but everyone else is perfectly entitled to make their own decisions and live the way they want would make you feel victimised?

Apologies if I come across wrongly here I am genuinely curious and want to understand why this has made you feel like that.

[Since90+2]

I'll be voting for Kate Forbes because I think she is the best candidate for the job and, for me, Humza Yousaf does not have the personality or skill set to be a successful leader.

I do not agree with her stance on gay marriage but do not think she is a bigot. She has an attachment to a certain set of beliefs but no way can she be described as antagonistic towards the gay community.

No doubt she has made a big mistake talking as openly as she has about her religious views and, ultimately, could see her challenge derailed as a consequence.

I am disappointed by the reaction of a number of senior SNP MSPs and MPs who, in my opinion, must have known all about Kate Forbes' religious views before she was appointed Finance Secretary and lauded by these very same individuals as the next great thing.

I lived (in sin apparently) with my wife before we got married and had kids. From what I've heard her say, Kate Forbes does not have a problem with this it's just something she (personally) would not choose to do.

For what it's worth, the usual the media pile on is just ridiculous. Writers at rags like the Daily Record moralising just makes me sick.










Well said.

[heretoday]

Well said.

Too right.

[The Harp Awakes]

I'll be voting for Kate Forbes because I think she is the best candidate for the job and, for me, Humza Yousaf does not have the personality or skill set to be a successful leader.

I do not agree with her stance on gay marriage but do not think she is a bigot. She has an attachment to a certain set of beliefs but no way can she be described as antagonistic towards the gay community.

No doubt she has made a big mistake talking as openly as she has about her religious views and, ultimately, could see her challenge derailed as a consequence.

I am disappointed by the reaction of a number of senior SNP MSPs and MPs who, in my opinion, must have known all about Kate Forbes' religious views before she was appointed Finance Secretary and lauded by these very same individuals as the next great thing.

I lived (in sin apparently) with my wife before we got married and had kids. From what I've heard her say, Kate Forbes does not have a problem with this it's just something she (personally) would not choose to do.

For what it's worth, the usual the media pile on is just ridiculous. Writers at rags like the Daily Record moralising just makes me sick.










Having thought this through over the past few days, I agree with you 100%.

As things stand Kate Forbes will get my vote. From a competence perspective, she is miles ahead of the other 2 candidates.

I have very little in common with the Free Church of Scotland and don't share KF's personal views. However, I find her honesty refreshing and commendable and I'm comfortable with her live and let live approach to life, despite expressing her personal values.

We could do with more honesty and integrity in politics.

[James310]

https://archive.ph/7PKDf

"KATE Forbes is the candidate to replace Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister that the opposition parties would most like not to win. They would much rather see Humza Yousaf lead the SNP"

A good article and as a non Indy supporter Kate Forbes would worry me way more than Humza would. But she still doesn't worry me that much.

This comment on Humza makes me think why he will just offer more of the same failed strategy.

"Humza Yousaf is a master of listening to people he already agrees with"

If she hangs on she may well hoover up votes in what remember will be a private ballot done in your own home. She just needs to hang on and change the topic to other things.

[Ozyhibby]

Having thought this through over the past few days, I agree with you 100%.

As things stand Kate Forbes will get my vote. From a competence perspective, she is miles ahead of the other 2 candidates.

I have very little in common with the Free Church of Scotland and don't share KF's personal views. However, I find her honesty refreshing and commendable and I'm comfortable with her live and let live approach to life, despite expressing her personal values.

We could do with more honesty and integrity in politics.

She has a lot of ground to make up and needs to get started very quickly for that to happen. Would be some come back story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McD]

So, in the absence of other factors, just people who are against gay marriage then.

I thought Scotland was supposed to be this home to liberal thinking? I thought we valued people based on who they are and not what they think or believe?

Oh well, here's to the rest of my life living in a vassal state to the Tory/Labour Great British Brexit Union, in a UK alone and lonely in the world. And without tomatoes.


it’s also supposed to be a welcoming and inclusive place… but also a place where a potential first minister would not have encouraged or championed gay marriage. Those aren’t compatible situations.

KF has every right to her beliefs and religion, the snp members and wider electorate also have the right to vote for people who are in step with them - that’s democracy.

[Hibrandenburg]

For all the braying and screeching about cancel culture and anti-religion, it's clear that the unambiguous, repeatedly forced narrative is this:

Having beliefs that would be considered bigoted or exclusionary are fine, actually
You should never take into account bigoted beliefs when choosing to vote for someone, rather some abstract notion of "performance" or "record"
People who criticise other people for having bigoted beliefs, or even merely point them out, are worse than people that hold bigoted beliefs, even if they are the target of those bigoted beliefs


I do not think someone that disagrees with (1) gay marriage and (2) children outside of wedlock should be the leader of a progressive country, let alone my country, and I would not vote for them. It is amazing that the narrative that is being pushed is that I am a bad person for stating this, that criticising these specific views mean I am somehow anti-religion when those views are not emblematic of all adherents to said religion.

Oh, and by the way? I was born out of wedlock. My child will be born out of wedlock. This rhetoric affects ME and MY FAMILY. I feel victimised by it. Where's the pieces defending my right and my family's right not to be thought of as the product of sin by someone who is running for leader of my country? I don't care that they didn't lie about not holding those beliefs, the point is THEY HOLD THOSE BELIEFS. Well done, you get brownie points for being honest about your bigotry. It still makes you a bigot.

Fantastic post.

[SHODAN]

I must be reading different things to you because I haven't seen much of the narrative you describe, plenty of people saying what you are saying though and it is your right to vote for whoever you want. It doesn't make you a bad person if you disagree with a candidate's views and find them disgusting and decide not to vote for them.

My issue has been twofold,
1. Her backers in the SNP who suddenly pull out of backing her when they see the public reaction to her views. Given how open she's been with her views in the past it can't have come as a surprise to them that she holds them or that she's honest enough to admit to them. They're at best naïve, at worst spineless hypocrites just doing what they think they need to do to save their own back.
2. The line of questioning from the press is verging on being anti-christian, whatever that means, as I mentioned in a previous post. I can understand questioning on the GRR and on same sex marriage (although this is a settled issue she can and will do nothing about changing), but questioning her on her views of sex outside marriage etc. Seems like a gratuitous pile on given how irrelevant it is to how she would run the country.

As I said previously though, this is democracy in action and she'll ultimately be judged by the party membership as to whether they think she's suitable or not. It's looking very unlikely at this stage and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

I've a couple of questions for you though, and I hope you don't take these the wrong way, I'm genuinely curious so please don't take offence. What would you describe your position in relation to religion? Atheist, Agnostic, Believer in something? Lapsed believer in something? Etc?

I'm just curious as to why someone's belief that something is a "sin" according to their god would cause so much anger and hurt to someone who, forgive me if I'm wrong, doesn't appear to hold any belief in the same god? I'm also curious as to how someone saying that something is wrong for them (because of their belief in a god) but everyone else is perfectly entitled to make their own decisions and live the way they want would make you feel victimised?

Apologies if I come across wrongly here I am genuinely curious and want to understand why this has made you feel like that.

I'm long past looking for debates on the internet, and this is the absolute last I'm going to post on this before I duck out of here altogether, but I'll respond to you because I appreciate this is a genuine good faith argument.

"Her backers in the SNP who suddenly pull out of backing her when they see the public reaction to her views. Given how open she's been with her views in the past it can't have come as a surprise to them that she holds them or that she's honest enough to admit to them. They're at best naïve, at worst spineless hypocrites just doing what they think they need to do to save their own back. "

I agree. The SNP have always been a neoliberal party which on the face of it are socially liberal. This leadership election has shown what many of us have thought for a while, that Nicola was the only thing keeping the right wingers at bay. The problem these people made, in my eyes, was endorsing her in the first place knowing full well that she would have no support from the majority of young pro-independence voters, which like it or not will lose them elections.

"The line of questioning from the press is verging on being anti-christian, whatever that means, as I mentioned in a previous post. I can understand questioning on the GRR and on same sex marriage (although this is a settled issue she can and will do nothing about changing), but questioning her on her views of sex outside marriage etc. Seems like a gratuitous pile on given how irrelevant it is to how she would run the country."

There are plenty religious members of parliament, here or elsewhere, who are religious but also pro-LGBT and pro-sex before marriage. This has never been about religion, it's about the fact that these views are incompatible with modern society. You cannot tell people that you are against something and then expect the targets of your views to vote for you unconditionally. Yousaf is a Muslim and doesn't have these views. Ross Greer of the Greens is Christian and doesn't have these views. This is a manufactured line by the press.

How do you know it wouldn't have a bearing on how she would run the country? She's already expressed opposition to the GRA bill, whatever your views on it, despite the majority of the party being overwhelmingly in favour. When a vote for buffer zones is put before parliament, why would she vote for if she's already admitted she would vote against gay marriage? She'd be the leader of the country, not a lot we could do about it! I'm going to be a father this year and I have never felt my potential children's abortion rights would be in question until now. That is real and can't be debated away.

"I've a couple of questions for you though, and I hope you don't take these the wrong way, I'm genuinely curious so please don't take offence. What would you describe your position in relation to religion? Atheist, Agnostic, Believer in something? Lapsed believer in something? Etc?"

Not that it should matter, but I'm atheist, formerly Christian up until until my mid twenties. I held these beliefs while I was a Christian too, so again I reject the argument that these attacks on Forbes are faith-based.

"I'm just curious as to why someone's belief that something is a "sin" according to their god would cause so much anger and hurt to someone who, forgive me if I'm wrong, doesn't appear to hold any belief in the same god? I'm also curious as to how someone saying that something is wrong for them (because of their belief in a god) but everyone else is perfectly entitled to make their own decisions and live the way they want would make you feel victimised?"

The leader of my country would think less of me, and my parents, for something which was outwith of my control. That isn't acceptable and I am within my right not to vote for them if I feel that is the case. It will have an impact on their decisions in government, whatever they might say. I can't imagine how people who have had abortions, or are gay, or are trans, would feel if she were leader - probably worse.

I honestly don't care about someone's religious convictions; it's their actions that matter. She has already said she would vote against gay marriage and the GRA. That isn't conjecture or speculation, and as someone who is acutely aware of the abuse and harassment that LGBT+ people, especially children, face, comments like that from a hopeful leader of the country aren't acceptable. I was never bullied for being Christian in school but I knew a hell of a lot of peers who were subject to physical and emotional abuse in school for the crime of even being suspected of being gay.

Aaaand I'm done. I've spent too much time on this already, it's not going to convince anyone or change anyone's mind because we're adults with fully formulated belief systems. Might as well be shouting into the void.

[James310]

I remember the days when we would argue about currency and who is paying the pensions, the good old days seem a long way away.

[neil7908]

I'm long past looking for debates on the internet, and this is the absolute last I'm going to post on this before I duck out of here altogether, but I'll respond to you because I appreciate this is a genuine good faith argument.

"Her backers in the SNP who suddenly pull out of backing her when they see the public reaction to her views. Given how open she's been with her views in the past it can't have come as a surprise to them that she holds them or that she's honest enough to admit to them. They're at best naïve, at worst spineless hypocrites just doing what they think they need to do to save their own back. "

I agree. The SNP have always been a neoliberal party which on the face of it are socially liberal. This leadership election has shown what many of us have thought for a while, that Nicola was the only thing keeping the right wingers at bay. The problem these people made, in my eyes, was endorsing her in the first place knowing full well that she would have no support from the majority of young pro-independence voters, which like it or not will lose them elections.

"The line of questioning from the press is verging on being anti-christian, whatever that means, as I mentioned in a previous post. I can understand questioning on the GRR and on same sex marriage (although this is a settled issue she can and will do nothing about changing), but questioning her on her views of sex outside marriage etc. Seems like a gratuitous pile on given how irrelevant it is to how she would run the country."

There are plenty religious members of parliament, here or elsewhere, who are religious but also pro-LGBT and pro-sex before marriage. This has never been about religion, it's about the fact that these views are incompatible with modern society. You cannot tell people that you are against something and then expect the targets of your views to vote for you unconditionally. Yousaf is a Muslim and doesn't have these views. Ross Greer of the Greens is Christian and doesn't have these views. This is a manufactured line by the press.

How do you know it wouldn't have a bearing on how she would run the country? She's already expressed opposition to the GRA bill, whatever your views on it, despite the majority of the party being overwhelmingly in favour. When a vote for buffer zones is put before parliament, why would she vote for if she's already admitted she would vote against gay marriage? She'd be the leader of the country, not a lot we could do about it! I'm going to be a father this year and I have never felt my potential children's abortion rights would be in question until now. That is real and can't be debated away.

"I've a couple of questions for you though, and I hope you don't take these the wrong way, I'm genuinely curious so please don't take offence. What would you describe your position in relation to religion? Atheist, Agnostic, Believer in something? Lapsed believer in something? Etc?"

Not that it should matter, but I'm atheist, formerly Christian up until until my mid twenties. I held these beliefs while I was a Christian too, so again I reject the argument that these attacks on Forbes are faith-based.

"I'm just curious as to why someone's belief that something is a "sin" according to their god would cause so much anger and hurt to someone who, forgive me if I'm wrong, doesn't appear to hold any belief in the same god? I'm also curious as to how someone saying that something is wrong for them (because of their belief in a god) but everyone else is perfectly entitled to make their own decisions and live the way they want would make you feel victimised?"

The leader of my country would think less of me, and my parents, for something which was outwith of my control. That isn't acceptable and I am within my right not to vote for them if I feel that is the case. It will have an impact on their decisions in government, whatever they might say. I can't imagine how people who have had abortions, or are gay, or are trans, would feel if she were leader - probably worse.

I honestly don't care about someone's religious convictions; it's their actions that matter. She has already said she would vote against gay marriage and the GRA. That isn't conjecture or speculation, and as someone who is acutely aware of the abuse and harassment that LGBT+ people, especially children, face, comments like that from a hopeful leader of the country aren't acceptable. I was never bullied for being Christian in school but I knew a hell of a lot of peers who were subject to physical and emotional abuse in school for the crime of even being suspected of being gay.

Aaaand I'm done. I've spent too much time on this already, it's not going to convince anyone or change anyone's mind because we're adults with fully formulated belief systems. Might as well be shouting into the void.

Fantastic post, well done.

[heretoday]

Oh Nicola. You poisoned the well when you quit the farm.

[Ozyhibby]

Forbes to reset and relaunch her campaign? Or about to pull out? Announcement tomorrow apparently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Forbes to reset and relaunch her campaign? Or about to pull out? Announcement tomorrow apparently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quit tomorrow, Humza FM within a fortnight. Sacked in 12 months after a year of no leading the polls comfortably. Flynn or Robertson take over the mess. Put your 5er on it

[Zambernardi1875]

Quit tomorrow, Humza FM within a fortnight. Sacked in 12 months after a year of no leading the polls comfortably. Flynn or Robertson take over the mess. Put your 5er on it

its a davie moyes after ferguson moment

[James310]

Quit tomorrow, Humza FM within a fortnight. Sacked in 12 months after a year of no leading the polls comfortably. Flynn or Robertson take over the mess. Put your 5er on it

Flynn would need to be in the Scottish Parliament to become the FM and Angus Robertson is never going to be leader or FM.

Stick your fiver on Anas Sarwar for next FM.

[McD]

I'm long past looking for debates on the internet, and this is the absolute last I'm going to post on this before I duck out of here altogether, but I'll respond to you because I appreciate this is a genuine good faith argument.

"Her backers in the SNP who suddenly pull out of backing her when they see the public reaction to her views. Given how open she's been with her views in the past it can't have come as a surprise to them that she holds them or that she's honest enough to admit to them. They're at best naïve, at worst spineless hypocrites just doing what they think they need to do to save their own back. "

I agree. The SNP have always been a neoliberal party which on the face of it are socially liberal. This leadership election has shown what many of us have thought for a while, that Nicola was the only thing keeping the right wingers at bay. The problem these people made, in my eyes, was endorsing her in the first place knowing full well that she would have no support from the majority of young pro-independence voters, which like it or not will lose them elections.

"The line of questioning from the press is verging on being anti-christian, whatever that means, as I mentioned in a previous post. I can understand questioning on the GRR and on same sex marriage (although this is a settled issue she can and will do nothing about changing), but questioning her on her views of sex outside marriage etc. Seems like a gratuitous pile on given how irrelevant it is to how she would run the country."

There are plenty religious members of parliament, here or elsewhere, who are religious but also pro-LGBT and pro-sex before marriage. This has never been about religion, it's about the fact that these views are incompatible with modern society. You cannot tell people that you are against something and then expect the targets of your views to vote for you unconditionally. Yousaf is a Muslim and doesn't have these views. Ross Greer of the Greens is Christian and doesn't have these views. This is a manufactured line by the press.

How do you know it wouldn't have a bearing on how she would run the country? She's already expressed opposition to the GRA bill, whatever your views on it, despite the majority of the party being overwhelmingly in favour. When a vote for buffer zones is put before parliament, why would she vote for if she's already admitted she would vote against gay marriage? She'd be the leader of the country, not a lot we could do about it! I'm going to be a father this year and I have never felt my potential children's abortion rights would be in question until now. That is real and can't be debated away.

"I've a couple of questions for you though, and I hope you don't take these the wrong way, I'm genuinely curious so please don't take offence. What would you describe your position in relation to religion? Atheist, Agnostic, Believer in something? Lapsed believer in something? Etc?"

Not that it should matter, but I'm atheist, formerly Christian up until until my mid twenties. I held these beliefs while I was a Christian too, so again I reject the argument that these attacks on Forbes are faith-based.

"I'm just curious as to why someone's belief that something is a "sin" according to their god would cause so much anger and hurt to someone who, forgive me if I'm wrong, doesn't appear to hold any belief in the same god? I'm also curious as to how someone saying that something is wrong for them (because of their belief in a god) but everyone else is perfectly entitled to make their own decisions and live the way they want would make you feel victimised?"

The leader of my country would think less of me, and my parents, for something which was outwith of my control. That isn't acceptable and I am within my right not to vote for them if I feel that is the case. It will have an impact on their decisions in government, whatever they might say. I can't imagine how people who have had abortions, or are gay, or are trans, would feel if she were leader - probably worse.

I honestly don't care about someone's religious convictions; it's their actions that matter. She has already said she would vote against gay marriage and the GRA. That isn't conjecture or speculation, and as someone who is acutely aware of the abuse and harassment that LGBT+ people, especially children, face, comments like that from a hopeful leader of the country aren't acceptable. I was never bullied for being Christian in school but I knew a hell of a lot of peers who were subject to physical and emotional abuse in school for the crime of even being suspected of being gay.

Aaaand I'm done. I've spent too much time on this already, it's not going to convince anyone or change anyone's mind because we're adults with fully formulated belief systems. Might as well be shouting into the void.


in amongst the maelstrom of this thread, congratulations to you and your partner :thumbsup:


also, another terrific post btw

[Lendo]

Having thought this through over the past few days, I agree with you 100%.

As things stand Kate Forbes will get my vote. From a competence perspective, she is miles ahead of the other 2 candidates.

I have very little in common with the Free Church of Scotland and don't share KF's personal views. However, I find her honesty refreshing and commendable and I'm comfortable with her live and let live approach to life, despite expressing her personal values.

We could do with more honesty and integrity in politics.

I’ll also be voting for her. Does anyone know when the rough timescales for when the ballots will be posted out to members.

[Stairway 2 7]

Flynn would need to be in the Scottish Parliament to become the FM and Angus Robertson is never going to be leader or FM.

Stick your fiver on Anas Sarwar for next FM.

They could change the rules to have them sit in both or he could be given a safe seat if not

[James310]

They could change the rules to have them sit in both or he could be given a safe seat if not

That would need an election then. If Humza wants his own mandate he will call an election soon after getting the job, so can't see anyone challenging him so quickly unless he really makes a mess of things in the first few weeks. Reckon he will not call an election though and be a massive hypocrite and stumble through things for 12-18 months and then be replaced.

[Stairway 2 7]

That would need an election then. If Humza wants his own mandate he will call an election soon after getting the job, so can't see anyone challenging him so quickly unless he really makes a mess of things in the first few weeks. Reckon he will not call an election though and be a massive hypocrite and stumble through things for 12-18 months and then be replaced.

I was going to say 12-18 actually 2 at a push but unlikely

[archie]

They could change the rules to have them sit in both or he could be given a safe seat if not

How? In any event, I don't think they would want Joanna Cherry to be able to stand.

[Stairway 2 7]

How? In any event, I don't think they would want Joanna Cherry to be able to stand.

Some in snp calling for it. They say it isn't a conflict as they only deal with Scottish issues. Even if that doesn't happen they need to bring there talent back from downsouth as these candidates are dug meat

Ash Regan MSP
@AshReganSNP
I ask that the party removes ruling which bars MPs also standing in Holyrood elections. The party must unleash talent to be part of the Scottish government that delivers for Scotland. We need a reset

[archie]

Some in snp calling for it. They say it isn't a conflict as they only deal with Scottish issues. Even if that doesn't happen they need to bring there talent back from downsouth as these candidates are dug meat

Ash Regan MSP
@AshReganSNP
I ask that the party removes ruling which bars MPs also standing in Holyrood elections. The party must unleash talent to be part of the Scottish government that delivers for Scotland. We need a reset

Right I see - in subsequent elections. Was this the rule brought in to keep out Joanna Cherry? FWIW I think it would be really odd having a leader who couldn't be FM.

[Sergio sledge]

I'm long past looking for debates on the internet, and this is the absolute last I'm going to post on this before I duck out of here altogether, but I'll respond to you because I appreciate this is a genuine good faith argument.

"Her backers in the SNP who suddenly pull out of backing her when they see the public reaction to her views. Given how open she's been with her views in the past it can't have come as a surprise to them that she holds them or that she's honest enough to admit to them. They're at best naïve, at worst spineless hypocrites just doing what they think they need to do to save their own back. "

I agree. The SNP have always been a neoliberal party which on the face of it are socially liberal. This leadership election has shown what many of us have thought for a while, that Nicola was the only thing keeping the right wingers at bay. The problem these people made, in my eyes, was endorsing her in the first place knowing full well that she would have no support from the majority of young pro-independence voters, which like it or not will lose them elections.

"The line of questioning from the press is verging on being anti-christian, whatever that means, as I mentioned in a previous post. I can understand questioning on the GRR and on same sex marriage (although this is a settled issue she can and will do nothing about changing), but questioning her on her views of sex outside marriage etc. Seems like a gratuitous pile on given how irrelevant it is to how she would run the country."

There are plenty religious members of parliament, here or elsewhere, who are religious but also pro-LGBT and pro-sex before marriage. This has never been about religion, it's about the fact that these views are incompatible with modern society. You cannot tell people that you are against something and then expect the targets of your views to vote for you unconditionally. Yousaf is a Muslim and doesn't have these views. Ross Greer of the Greens is Christian and doesn't have these views. This is a manufactured line by the press.

How do you know it wouldn't have a bearing on how she would run the country? She's already expressed opposition to the GRA bill, whatever your views on it, despite the majority of the party being overwhelmingly in favour. When a vote for buffer zones is put before parliament, why would she vote for if she's already admitted she would vote against gay marriage? She'd be the leader of the country, not a lot we could do about it! I'm going to be a father this year and I have never felt my potential children's abortion rights would be in question until now. That is real and can't be debated away.

"I've a couple of questions for you though, and I hope you don't take these the wrong way, I'm genuinely curious so please don't take offence. What would you describe your position in relation to religion? Atheist, Agnostic, Believer in something? Lapsed believer in something? Etc?"

Not that it should matter, but I'm atheist, formerly Christian up until until my mid twenties. I held these beliefs while I was a Christian too, so again I reject the argument that these attacks on Forbes are faith-based.

"I'm just curious as to why someone's belief that something is a "sin" according to their god would cause so much anger and hurt to someone who, forgive me if I'm wrong, doesn't appear to hold any belief in the same god? I'm also curious as to how someone saying that something is wrong for them (because of their belief in a god) but everyone else is perfectly entitled to make their own decisions and live the way they want would make you feel victimised?"

The leader of my country would think less of me, and my parents, for something which was outwith of my control. That isn't acceptable and I am within my right not to vote for them if I feel that is the case. It will have an impact on their decisions in government, whatever they might say. I can't imagine how people who have had abortions, or are gay, or are trans, would feel if she were leader - probably worse.

I honestly don't care about someone's religious convictions; it's their actions that matter. She has already said she would vote against gay marriage and the GRA. That isn't conjecture or speculation, and as someone who is acutely aware of the abuse and harassment that LGBT+ people, especially children, face, comments like that from a hopeful leader of the country aren't acceptable. I was never bullied for being Christian in school but I knew a hell of a lot of peers who were subject to physical and emotional abuse in school for the crime of even being suspected of being gay.

Aaaand I'm done. I've spent too much time on this already, it's not going to convince anyone or change anyone's mind because we're adults with fully formulated belief systems. Might as well be shouting into the void.

Thanks for the response and for taking my questions in good faith, interesting to hear another viewpoint on things.

And congratulations with your impending fatherhood! I wish you and your partner all the best with it!

[The Harp Awakes]

I’ll also be voting for her. Does anyone know when the rough timescales for when the ballots will be posted out to members.

Not sure mate. Key milestones as follows :

Nominations opened 23h59 on 15 February
Nominations close 12h00 on 24 February
Ballot open 12h00 on 13 March
Ballot closes 12h00 on 27 March

I'd have thought the ballot would be done online but could be wrong. That's the way seat nominations in the past were done.

Edit - just checked. Those who have a registered email address will get an electronic voting form and those who don't will receive a postal form.

[SteveHFC]

Quit tomorrow, Humza FM within a fortnight. Sacked in 12 months after a year of no leading the polls comfortably. Flynn or Robertson take over the mess. Put your 5er on it

If that’s the best the SNP can do then I will be surprised if they’re still in charge after the next election.

Surely there’s other better candidates out there?

[Hibs4185]

If that’s the best the SNP can do then I will be surprised if they’re still in charge after the next election.

Surely there’s other better candidates out there?

Humza is supposedly the preferred candidate of NS as he is seen as a continuation candidate.

Big mistake I think and hope it isn’t him.

[marinello59]

Humza is supposedly the preferred candidate of NS as he is seen as a continuation candidate.

Big mistake I think and hope it isn’t him.

My guess is the Murrell’s backing of their friend Yousaf is the reason Robertson stood aside.

[Hiber-nation]

Humza is supposedly the preferred candidate of NS as he is seen as a continuation candidate.

Big mistake I think and hope it isn’t him.

She's not daft. She can't possibly think he's a leader. Unless someone else doesn't fancy it just now and is biding their time to look good riding to the rescue when his position becomes untenable.

[Santa Cruz]

The smears have started on Humza, the Herald is alledging Alba are behind it. No point posting a link as I can only see the headline due to the paywall.

Edit - Alba deny this btw.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64738926

Forbes raging at Swinney.

SNP civil war within days of Sturgeon quitting. Great to see.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64738926

Forbes raging at Swinney.

SNP civil war within days of Sturgeon quitting. Great to see.

Forbes misrepresenting what Swinney says there? He is not saying a Christian woman can’t be FM at all. She is playing the victim. That’s the worst thing you can do if you want to show you can be a leader. It’s why Cherry is so unsuitable for the role. It’s been an almighty crash and burn.
SNP reputation as a very liberal party though is enhanced. It’s not really a civil war if it’s just one person with views that just don’t fit with the rest of the party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64738926

Forbes raging at Swinney.

SNP civil war within days of Sturgeon quitting. Great to see.

I am glad it's finally starting to implode, it's been a while. Much more to come, the papers apparently have a story on Humza and Anum Qaisar, I wasn't sure what the connection was then saw she used to work for him. It's going to get nasty.

[James310]

Forbes misrepresenting what Swinney says there? He is not saying a Christian woman can’t be FM at all. She is playing the victim. That’s the worst thing you can do if you want to show you can be a leader. It’s why Cherry is so unsuitable for the role. It’s been an almighty crash and burn.
SNP reputation as a very liberal party though is enhanced. It’s not really a civil war if it’s just one person with views that just don’t fit with the rest of the party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Poor Joanna Cherry the subject of death and rape threats from members of the SNP, she really plays that victim card though. 🤔

I reckon you must be the only person in Scotland who thinks the SNPs reputation has been enhanced the last few days.

[Curried]

Forbes misrepresenting what Swinney says there? He is not saying a Christian woman can’t be FM at all. She is playing the victim. That’s the worst thing you can do if you want to show you can be a leader. It’s why Cherry is so unsuitable for the role. It’s been an almighty crash and burn.
SNP reputation as a very liberal party though is enhanced. It’s not really a civil war if it’s just one person with views that just don’t fit with the rest of the party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. The BBC are at it. If you read the presser more closely "Responding to his remarks, a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: Blah".

[Since90+2]

I am glad it's finally starting to implode, it's been a while. Much more to come, the papers apparently have a story on Humza and Anum Qaisar, I wasn't sure what the connection was then saw she used to work for him. It's going to get nasty.

Interesting.

It seems the only chance unionist parties, and that's all it is at the moment, a chance, of winning at Holyrood is because of an implosion at the SNP rather than winning on policies such as the economy, cost of living ect.

They've not been able to put forward a cohesive and winnable manifesto that voters could buy into, so they've had to wait until the SNP have a bit of a civil war. Doesn't really say a lot for the standard of these other parties.

[He's here!]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeon-breaks-vow-to-keep-out-of-snp-leadership-race-dlbrds9mx

'Sturgeon breaks vow to keep out of leadership race by taking aim at Forbes'.

[James310]

Interesting.

It seems the only chance unionist parties, and that's all it is at the moment, a chance, of winning at Holyrood is because of an implosion at the SNP rather than winning on policies such as the economy, cost of living ect.

They've not been able to put forward a cohesive and winnable manifesto that voters could buy into, so they've had to wait until the SNP have a bit of a civil war. Doesn't really say a lot for the standard of these other parties.

Yea and no, we have seen from here people will vote SNP no matter what. Labour could have the best manifesto ever that ticks all the boxes in terms of policy but because they don't want Independence some people will never vote for them. I reckon in Scotland very few people actually look at the manifestos and actual policy.

But hopefully that's changing now as I think many people now realise Independence is not happening in the timescales they were told it would so hopefully we get back to voting for the parties that do have the best policies.

I can't see the SNP for example saying vote for us for a referendum next year which is pretty much what they have promised for a long time now and it got lots of votes over the line.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeon-breaks-vow-to-keep-out-of-snp-leadership-race-dlbrds9mx

'Sturgeon breaks vow to keep out of leadership race by taking aim at Forbes'.

Surprised at her comments. She's entitled to them but making it pretty clear who she doesn't want. Also she informed Humza of her decision to quit, but not other ministers

[Since90+2]

Yea and no, we have seen from here people will vote SNP no matter what. Labour could have the best manifesto ever that ticks all the boxes in terms of policy but because they don't want Independence some people will never vote for them. I reckon in Scotland very few people actually look at the manifestos and actual policy.

But hopefully that's changing now as I think many people now realise Independence is not happening in the timescales they were told it would so hopefully we get back to voting for the parties that do have the best policies.

I can't see the SNP for example saying vote for us for a referendum next year which is pretty much what they have promised for a long time now and it got lots of votes over the line.

I'd give the Scottish electorate a bit more credit than yourself, they've continually won elections as overall they've governed fairly well, especially within the confines of the current Westminster led setup.

There are people who will vote for SNP no matter what, but you also have people who are completely consumed by their hatred of the SNP and Scottish independence, that they'd never consider voting for them, even in the face of evidence to show they've done pretty well.

[James310]

I'd give the Scottish electorate a bit more credit than yourself, they've continually won elections as overall they've governed fairly well, especially within the confines of the current Westminster led setup.

There are people who will vote for SNP no matter what, but you also have people who are completely consumed by their hatred of the SNP and Scottish independence, that they'd never consider voting for them, even in the face of evidence to show they've done pretty well.

What's the evidence to suggest they have done pretty well? On Education in schools for example what evidence is there things are good?

A big policy area that I haven't heard a single leadership candidate talk about.

[He's here!]

Interesting.

It seems the only chance unionist parties, and that's all it is at the moment, a chance, of winning at Holyrood is because of an implosion at the SNP rather than winning on policies such as the economy, cost of living ect.

They've not been able to put forward a cohesive and winnable manifesto that voters could buy into, so they've had to wait until the SNP have a bit of a civil war. Doesn't really say a lot for the standard of these other parties.

The only 'policy' SNP voters unite around is independence, safe in the knowledge the vote for opposition parties is split. With a bit of luck Labour will look like an attractive option for Scottish voters by the time of the next general election and the knock-on effect will also put the SNP under serious pressure at the next Holyrood elections. Given how feeble and disjointed they look unshackled from the iron grip of the Murrells it's a strong possibility.

[Since90+2]

What's the evidence to suggest they have done pretty well? On Education in schools for example what evidence is there things are good?

A big policy area that I haven't heard a single leadership candidate talk about.

https://www.snp.org/record/

Lots and lots of good things in there (well 100 to be exact).

Of course they don't have a perfect record, literally no government in history ever has or ever will, but everyone but the most blinkered of unionists can't argue that is an impressive list of achievements that have benefited the people of Scotland.

[James310]

https://www.snp.org/record/

Lots and lots of good things in there (well 100 to be exact).

Of course they don't have a perfect record, literally no government in history event has or ever will, but everyone but the most blinkered of unionists can't argue that is an impressive list of achievements that have benefited the people of Scotland.

Those lists always make be chuckle, depending on what day it is the SNP can't do anything as the constraints of Westminster means they have no powers to deliver real change, then the next day here is a list of all the wonderful things we have done with the extensive powers we have. Some of the things on that list are a bit dubious as well, we made a National Marine Plan which has some aims and objectives in it.

[Since90+2]

Those lists always make be chuckle, depending on what day it is the SNP can't do anything as the constraints of Westminster means they have no powers to deliver real change, then the next day here is a list of all the wonderful things we have done with the extensive powers we have. Some of the things on that list are a bit dubious as well, we made a National Marine Plan which has some aims and objectives in it.

As I said, all but the most blinkered of unionists.

[James310]

As I said, all but the most blinkered of unionists.

You made a claim that they govern well and there is evidence, I am still waiting for that evidence. Education for example?

[Since90+2]

You made a claim that they govern well and there is evidence, I am still waiting for that evidence. Education for example?

Few posts up.

[WhileTheChief..]

I never imagined religion could still play suck a big part in politics in Scotland in modern society.

We really are a backwards country at times.

[danhibees1875]

I never imagined religion could still play suck a big part in politics in Scotland in modern society.

We really are a backwards country at times.

I don't think religion has much to do with it beyond being used as a bit of a deflection. :dunno:

[Ozyhibby]

I never imagined religion could still play suck a big part in politics in Scotland in modern society.

We really are a backwards country at times.

It has zero to do with religion. It’s about the choices she says she will make. In fact the last week has shown just how secular Scotland has become.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WhileTheChief..]

It has zero to do with religion. It’s about the choices she says she will make. In fact the last week has shown just how secular Scotland has become.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’ve lost me with this!

I appreciate I don’t follow things too closely but the only news I’ve seen has been about Forbes’ faith.

Newsnight last night was all about the different religions the Scottish political leaders follow.

So, as far as I can see, it’s 100% about religion just now. Not sure how you can say otherwise.

[CropleyWasGod]

You’ve lost me with this!

I appreciate I don’t follow things too closely but the only news I’ve seen has been about Forbes’ faith.

Newsnight last night was all about the different religions the Scottish political leaders follow.

So, as far as I can see, it’s 100% about religion just now. Not sure how you can say otherwise.

It's what politicians the world over do. It's about finding your opponent's Achilles Heel, and continually battering them about it to make political capital.

If it wasn't faith, it would be something else.

[McD]

You’ve lost me with this!

I appreciate I don’t follow things too closely but the only news I’ve seen has been about Forbes’ faith.

Newsnight last night was all about the different religions the Scottish political leaders follow.

So, as far as I can see, it’s 100% about religion just now. Not sure how you can say otherwise.


to be fair to the point Ozy made, it started about religion but has moved quickly to be specifically about KF’s thoughts and potential actions. If she’d deflected the questions away by saying she was an advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, or that she wasn’t in Parliament when the vote for same sex marriage took place, we and she wouldn’t be having this discussion now.

she’s been badly prepped and quite naive to not expect that providing answers as she has would show her to be out of step with the majority of the population.

[James310]

Health secretary Humza Yousaf’s leadership credentials have been dealt a major blow, after a leading watchdog delivered a “damning verdict” on the Scottish Government’s NHS recovery strategy.

A report from Audit Scotland said Mr Yousaf’s strategy lacked “detailed actions” to allow progress to be accurately measured, and called for greater transparency from the Government.

The recovery includes ambitious recruitment targets, including hiring 800 new GPs by 2027, but the report said that aim was “not on track” and posed a “risk” to the recovery of primary care.

https://www.scotsman.com/health/snp-leadership-contest-humza-yousafs-leadership-credentials-dealt-blow-by-nhs-report-4037771

[J-C]

https://www.snp.org/record/

Lots and lots of good things in there (well 100 to be exact).

Of course they don't have a perfect record, literally no government in history ever has or ever will, but everyone but the most blinkered of unionists can't argue that is an impressive list of achievements that have benefited the people of Scotland.

Sshh! Talking sense isn't what James likes, he'll be away hunting down a dozen polls and the handful of poor things that fits his agenda.

[Since90+2]

Sshh! Talking sense isn't what James likes, he'll be away hunting down a dozen polls and the handful of poor things that fits agenda.

Yip.

Asked for evidence of good governance, got it, then ignored it and asked again.

As I said in one of my posts, all but the most blinkered and hate filled of unionists will fail to recognise it.

[James310]

Yip.

Asked for evidence of good governance, got it, then ignored it and asked again.

As I said in one of my posts, all but the most blinkered and hate filled of unionists will fail to recognise it.

I saw nothing on that list that shows the improvement in Education standards or closing the attainment gap since the SNP came to power.

So you supplied no evidence at all.

It was a list that also included things like free period products that was driven by Labour and Monica Lennon.

[Bristolhibby]

Those lists always make be chuckle, depending on what day it is the SNP can't do anything as the constraints of Westminster means they have no powers to deliver real change, then the next day here is a list of all the wonderful things we have done with the extensive powers we have. Some of the things on that list are a bit dubious as well, we made a National Marine Plan which has some aims and objectives in it.

That literally is how any Scottish government has to govern. Some things they can do, some things they can’t do.

I prefer the Scottish government to be able to do anything and everything they are elected by the people of Scotland to do and be fully responsible and accountable for. At the moment that simply isn’t the case.

J

[Ozyhibby]

You’ve lost me with this!

I appreciate I don’t follow things too closely but the only news I’ve seen has been about Forbes’ faith.

Newsnight last night was all about the different religions the Scottish political leaders follow.

So, as far as I can see, it’s 100% about religion just now. Not sure how you can say otherwise.

It’s not really about her religion though. Plenty from religious backgrounds stand but don’t let it affect how they vote. Forbes is saying that she would have voted against gay marriage which is pretty well established in Scottish society. She has taken up a minority position. And she is doing it on multiple issues. In electoral politics, taking up minority positions isn’t really a recipe for success.
Blackford belongs to the same church but is comfortable with gay marriage.
So it’s nothing to do with her religion, which is clearly a religion that is comfortable with Blackford’s positions. She could easily have adopted the same stance as Blackford and not fallen foul of her religion and had no problems this week.
This is about her choices and if her choices go against what the majority think then it’s unlikely she will get elected. Democracy is about winning people over and it’s difficult to do that if they don’t agree with you.
And the bit about having children outside marriage is just insulting to a massive amount of people. How do you hope to get elected while insulting people?
And these issues matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Since90+2]

It’s not really about her religion though. Plenty from religious backgrounds stand but don’t let it affect how they vote. Forbes is saying that she would have voted against gay marriage which is pretty well established in Scottish society. She has taken up a minority position. And she is doing it on multiple issues. In electoral politics, taking up minority positions isn’t really a recipe for success.
Blackford belongs to the same church but is comfortable with gay marriage.
So it’s nothing to do with her religion, which is clearly a religion that is comfortable with Blackford’s positions. She could easily have adopted the same stance as Blackford and not fallen foul of her religion and had no problems this week.
This is about her choices and if her choices go against what the majority think then it’s unlikely she will get elected. Democracy is about winning people over and it’s difficult to do that if they don’t agree with you.
And the bit about having children outside marriage is just insulting to a massive amount of people. How do you hope to get elected while insulting people?
And these issues matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do people actually get insulted about someone having another opinion than them? I really couldn't care less what KF thinks about sex outside marriage, I care about her ability to be FM and improve things like the economy.

She's simply said her faith doesn't agree with people having sex outside marriage. Is that really that insulting? People must be very thin skinned.

[WhileTheChief..]

Do people actually get insulted about someone having another opinion than them? I really couldn't care less what KF thinks about sex outside marriage, I care about her ability to be FM and improve things like the economy.

She's simply said her faith doesn't agree with people having sex outside marriage. Is that really that insulting? People must be very thin skinned.

Yeah I agree with this.

She’s not saying only married people should have kids. She is saying that she wouldn’t have kids outside of marriage.

Why would anyone have a problem with this?

Which takes me back to my point about us being a backwards country.

This argument feels like it should have taken place 100 years ago. Actually, it probably did. It’s just that we haven’t really moved on.

[Ozyhibby]

Do people actually get insulted about someone having another opinion than them? I really couldn't care less what KF thinks about sex outside marriage, I care about her ability to be FM and improve things like the economy.

She's simply said her faith doesn't agree with people having sex outside marriage. Is that really that insulting? People must be very thin skinned.

She is talking about people’s children though. People are very very sensitive when it comes to other people talking about their children. Do I really want to give my vote to someone who thinks my child is illegitimate? That thinks my child is worth less than another?
I’m not saying that’s how I take it but surely you can imagine that there were parents watching her say that and feeling a little bit insulted.
I’ve coached kids football for 12 years now and believe me when I say, when it comes to their kids, parents are very sensitive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

Do people actually get insulted about someone having another opinion than them? I really couldn't care less what KF thinks about sex outside marriage, I care about her ability to be FM and improve things like the economy.

She's simply said her faith doesn't agree with people having sex outside marriage. Is that really that insulting? People must be very thin skinned.

she also said that her faith would inform how she would vote, and that she would have voted against gay marriage. how would it inform her voting on issues like supporting single parents? she didn't just say that her faith disagrees with it, she said explicitly that according to her faith it is 'wrong'. that's not good.

she has stated that she would uphold the democratic will of the scottish parliament even if it went against her beliefs. she has an opportunity right now to do that, by standing up to westminster over the use of Section 35...but she's not doing it. so turns out, democracy isn't a hill she's willing to die on.

someone should ask her how she feels about the arts, and what her views are about dinosaurs. could be very revealing.

all in all, this whole situation demonstrates beyond doubt that she is, if nothing else, far too naive for the top job - which is understandable, a she's only 32.

[Ozyhibby]

Yeah I agree with this.

She’s not saying only married people should have kids. She is saying that she wouldn’t have kids outside of marriage.

Why would anyone have a problem with this?

Which takes me back to my point about us being a backwards country.

This argument feels like it should have taken place 100 years ago. Actually, it probably did. It’s just that we haven’t really moved on.

I know what she thinks she was saying but it still came across as she believed her opinion to be superior to the rest of us.
It could have taken place 100 years ago but I don’t think it’s the public who haven’t moved on, it’s Kate Forbes. It feels and sounds like she has a 19th century belief system and the public appear to not be keen on that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

she also said that her faith would inform how she would vote, and that she would have voted against gay marriage. how would it inform her voting on issues like supporting single parents? she didn't just say that her faith disagrees with it, she said explicitly that according to her faith it is 'wrong'. that's not good.

she has stated that she would uphold the democratic will of the scottish parliament even if it went against her beliefs. she has an opportunity right now to do that, by standing up to westminster over the use of Section 35...but she's not doing it. so turns out, democracy isn't a hill she's willing to die on.

someone should ask her how she feels about the arts, and what her views are about dinosaurs. could be very revealing.

all in all, this whole situation demonstrates beyond doubt that she is, if nothing else, far too naive for the top job - which is understandable, a she's only 32.

And it’s not just her individual vote that concerns people, it’s the fact that as FM she has the ability to decide the direction of travel for the govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Since90+2]

She is talking about people’s children though. People are very very sensitive when it comes to other people talking about their children. Do I really want to give my vote to someone who thinks my child is illegitimate? That thinks my child is worth less than another?
I’m not saying that’s how I take it but surely you can imagine that there were parents watching her say that and feeling a little bit insulted.
I’ve coached kids football for 12 years now and believe me when I say, when it comes to their kids, parents are very sensitive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She's never said one child is worth less than another. That's absolute nonsense to even suggest that she has.

It's people making up rubbish such as that why people just disengage with it.

[grunt]

Do people actually get insulted about someone having another opinion than them? I really couldn't care less what KF thinks about sex outside marriage, I care about her ability to be FM and improve things like the economy.

She's simply said her faith doesn't agree with people having sex outside marriage. Is that really that insulting? People must be very thin skinned.
Just look back up the thread to find plenty people insulted by her views.

[AgentDaleCooper]

I know what she thinks she was saying but it still came across as she believed her opinion to be superior to the rest of us.
It could have taken place 100 years ago but I don’t think it’s the public who haven’t moved on, it’s Kate Forbes. It feels and sounds like she has a 19th century belief system and the public appear to not be keen on that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the worrying thing to me is that there is a large swathe of the public who actually are keen on it, but keep it to themselves. Forbes as FM would serve to legitimize and normalise views that are against decades of hard earned social progress.

the Free Church's belief system was founded in times of cultural and humanitarian disaster, and its reactionary nature is a legacy of this. it's a result of imperial trauma, and it belongs in the sea.

[AgentDaleCooper]

And it’s not just her individual vote that concerns people, it’s the fact that as FM she has the ability to decide the direction of travel for the govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

totally agree.

[Ozyhibby]

She's never said one child is worth less than another. That's absolute nonsense to even suggest that she has.

It's people making up rubbish such as that why people just disengage with it.

She would never say such a thing but she does think that children shouldn’t be born out of wedlock. If she thinks my child shouldn’t be born then I have no time for her and she won’t be getting my vote.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

She's never said one child is worth less than another. That's absolute nonsense to even suggest that she has.

It's people making up rubbish such as that why people just disengage with it.

she's not said that, but she has literally said that their conception was 'wrong'.

[Since90+2]

Just look back up the thread to find plenty people insulted by her views.

Fair enough, people are easily offended these days generally in society.

[Santa Cruz]

She is talking about people’s children though. People are very very sensitive when it comes to other people talking about their children. Do I really want to give my vote to someone who thinks my child is illegitimate? That thinks my child is worth less than another?
I’m not saying that’s how I take it but surely you can imagine that there were parents watching her say that and feeling a little bit insulted.
I’ve coached kids football for 12 years now and believe me when I say, when it comes to their kids, parents are very sensitive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She never said that, she said it's not a choice she would make. She's not imposing her personal views on the population in any policy decisions, she's just being honest and overly scrutinised about her own personal life imo. What parents take offence to is when the State attempts to impose unnecessary legislation on the vast majority who are able to provide a safe environment to raise their child, I'm thinking of the failed Named Person's legislation. Out of interest did you object to that? I know plenty did and they continued to vote SNP.

[AgentDaleCooper]

She never said that, she said it's not a choice she would make. She's not imposing her personal views on the population in any policy decisions, she's just being honest and overly scrutinised about her own personal life imo. What parents take offence too is when the State attempts to impose unnecessary legislation on the vast majority who are able to provide a safe environment to raise their child, I'm thinking of the failed Named Person's legislation. Out of interest did you object to that? I know plenty did and they continued to vote SNP.

she has said that she would vote in line with her faith, and that she would have voted against gay marriage.

she has said that the conception of children out with marriage is 'wrong'.

the Free Church is a fundamentalist religion, and I don't want a first minister who is going to govern along such lines.

She has an immediate opportunity to demonstrate that she is more dedicated to upholding the democratic will of Holyrood against her own beliefs, but she's not taking it.

How many more red flags do you need?

[Curried]

A lot of intolerant people on this thread. Pull your heads in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgp-0UxeBK0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgp-0UxeBK0)

[Ozyhibby]

She never said that, she said it's not a choice she would make. She's not imposing her personal views on the population in any policy decisions, she's just being honest and overly scrutinised about her own personal life imo. What parents take offence to is when the State attempts to impose unnecessary legislation on the vast majority who are able to provide a safe environment to raise their child, I'm thinking of the failed Named Person's legislation. Out of interest did you object to that? I know plenty did and they continued to vote SNP.

I thought the names person thing sounded like a stupid idea that didn’t address a particular problem? Also I didn’t understand it but knew it would never happen so didn’t worry about it too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

A lot of intolerant people on this thread. Pull your heads in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgp-0UxeBK0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgp-0UxeBK0)

how much do you know about the Free Church? It's my family's background. It's a cultural prison. I've seen family members disowned because of children born out of wedlock, people disinherited for stopping going to church, infant mortalities blamed on 'past sins'.

...so no offence, but if you're referring to me, pull your own head in :aok:

[Santa Cruz]

she has said that she would vote in line with her faith, and that she would have voted against gay marriage.

she has said that the conception of children out with marriage is 'wrong'.

the Free Church is a fundamentalist religion, and I don't want a first minister who is going to govern along such lines.

She has an immediate opportunity to demonstrate that she is more dedicated to upholding the democratic will of Holyrood against her own beliefs, but she's not taking it.

How many more red flags do you need?

The real red flag for me is the level of dishonesty that exists across the political spectrum. I don't share her views, but if she's prepared to be honest with her own views knowing they'll go against the majority of public opinion, chances are that same level of integrity will be applied in any future policy decisions she makes. She'd not last 5 minutes in post trying to impose her own views on the nation, she'll know that.

[Since90+2]

The real red flag for me is the level of dishonesty that exists across the political spectrum. I don't share her views, but if she's prepared to be honest with her own views knowing they'll go against the majority of public opinion, chances are that same level of integrity will be applied in any future policy decisions she makes. She'd not last 5 minutes in post trying to impose her own views on the nation, she'll know that.

Agreed.

I'd rather have a FM that was completely open and truthful about her views, even if I didn't necessarily agree with then all, than someone who would be dishonest simply to get in power.

[danhibees1875]

Agreed.

I'd rather have a FM that was completely open and truthful about her views, even if I didn't necessarily agree with then all, than someone who would be dishonest simply to get in power.

Are they the only 2 options? :greengrin

[Curried]

how much do you know about the Free Church? It's my family's background. It's a cultural prison. I've seen family members disowned because of children born out of wedlock, people disinherited for stopping going to church, infant mortalities blamed on 'past sins'.

...so no offence, but if you're referring to me, pull your own ****ing head in :aok:


I'm not, but i don't enjoy profanities from anyone. Retract or your reported.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Are they the only 2 options? :greengrin

exactly. total false dichotomy.

i don't want a bigot as first minister, no matter how honest they are about their bigotry.

people are seeing what they want to see in Kate Forbes. IMO, people are unconvinced by the other two candidates and wishing that Forbes was something that she's not. As a native Gaelic speaker myself, I would absolutely love to think that she's the solution - but she isn't.

as i keep saying, she's actually already contradicted herself, wilfully or not, by saying that she holds democracy as the highest value to defend, yet isn't standing up to Westminster over their use of Section 35. She has an 'oven-ready' opportunity to put her money where her mouth is, but she's not doing it. That isn't honesty - it's a red flag.

[AgentDaleCooper]

I'm not, but i don't enjoy profanities from anyone. Retract or your reported.

ok, done - so who were you referring to then? am i being 'intolerant' for not wanting a fundamentalist bigot as FM?

[AugustaHibs]

I'm not, but i don't enjoy profanities from anyone. Retract or your reported.


Retract that swear word or your reported😭

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/_kateforbes/status/1628724964605014017?s=46&t=n1NrnWjxuNOyg9Mf9YmcBA

Obviously going down the reboot path. Hope she is successful but got a lot of work to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Fair enough, people are easily offended these days generally in society.Is offended the correct word here? I'm not offended by her beliefs, she's entitled to them and can believe whatever she likes whether I agree with them or not. I dont agree with her views and I support those people they belittle but the use of the word "offended" has been weaponised and downgraded to allow her views a validity they don't deserve, IMHO. People who are gay or born out of wedlock might actually be offended or might not but they are belittling towards those people and that's an unnecessary angle to put out there.

The question is are her beliefs compatible with being the FM of Scotland and how will they colour the direction she takes the country. SNP members might be concerned about that and also whether the will affect the direction their party takes whether in power or not. I'm old enough to remember when religious organisations were up in arms as to whether football matches should take place on a Sunday or not. Not something most people were bothered about at the time but the views of religious leaders were allowed take over the headlines for weeks. Sunday football was allowed because it didn't matter how much religious people complained, they didn't have the power to stop it.

I'm not offended by what she says I just find her private views archaic and not really suitable given the way society has moved. At a more granular level I don't believe christians who give credence to ancient tribal Law are christians at all, as they ignore Christ's teachings, but thats up to them.

If she were in power and an issue came up which she found difficult to resolve due to her religious point of view she's hamstringing her direction from the off. Not politically objective and not a position I want the FM of Scotland to put themselves in.

The "people are too easily offended" tack is such a cliche and is an avenue to validate all sorts of ****housery and is an attempt to shut people up.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

Is offended the correct word here? I'm not offended by her beliefs, she's entitled to them and can believe whatever she likes whether I agree with them or not. I dont agree with her views and I support those people they belittle but the use of the word "offended" has been weaponised and downgraded to allow her views a validity they don't deserve, IMHO. People who are gay or born out of wedlock might actually be offended or might not but they are belittling towards those people and that's an unnecessary angle to put out there.

The question is are her beliefs compatible with being the FM of Scotland and how will they colour the direction she takes the country. SNP members might be concerned about that and also whether the will affect the direction their party takes whether in power or not. I'm old enough to remember when religious organisations were up in arms as to whether football matches should take place on a Sunday or not. Not something most people were bothered about at the time but the views of religious leaders were allowed take over the headlines for weeks. Sunday football was allowed because it didn't matter how much religious people complained, they didn't have the power to stop it.

I'm not offended by what she says I just find her private views archaic and not really suitable given the way society has moved. At a more granular level I don't believe christians who give credence to ancient tribal Law are christians at all, as they ignore Christ's teachings, but thats up to them.

If she were in power and an issue came up which she found difficult to resolve due to her religious point of view she's hamstringing her direction from the off. Not politically objective and not a position I want the FM of Scotland to put themselves in.

The "people are too easily offended" tack is such a cliche and is an avenue to validate all sorts of ****housery and is an attempt to shut people up.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

:top marks

[Curried]

Retract that swear word or your reported😭

Yes.

[Santa Cruz]

Is offended the correct word here? I'm not offended by her beliefs, she's entitled to them and can believe whatever she likes whether I agree with them or not. I dont agree with her views and I support those people they belittle but the use of the word "offended" has been weaponised and downgraded to allow her views a validity they don't deserve, IMHO. People who are gay or born out of wedlock might actually be offended or might not but they are belittling towards those people and that's an unnecessary angle to put out there.

The question is are her beliefs compatible with being the FM of Scotland and how will they colour the direction she takes the country. SNP members might be concerned about that and also whether the will affect the direction their party takes whether in power or not. I'm old enough to remember when religious organisations were up in arms as to whether football matches should take place on a Sunday or not. Not something most people were bothered about at the time but the views of religious leaders were allowed take over the headlines for weeks. Sunday football was allowed because it didn't matter how much religious people complained, they didn't have the power to stop it.

I'm not offended by what she says I just find her private views archaic and not really suitable given the way society has moved. At a more granular level I don't believe christians who give credence to ancient tribal Law are christians at all, as they ignore Christ's teachings, but thats up to them.

If she were in power and an issue came up which she found difficult to resolve due to her religious point of view she's hamstringing her direction from the off. Not politically objective and not a position I want the FM of Scotland to put themselves in.

The "people are too easily offended" tack is such a cliche and is an avenue to validate all sorts of ****housery and is an attempt to shut people up.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Would the FM be expected to resolve any issue on their own without gaining support from their Cabinet or Parliament? Seem to remember the outgoing FM saying recently the SG held collective responsibilty, can't mind what issue she was talking about at the time though.

[Brightside]

she also said that her faith would inform how she would vote, and that she would have voted against gay marriage. how would it inform her voting on issues like supporting single parents? she didn't just say that her faith disagrees with it, she said explicitly that according to her faith it is 'wrong'. that's not good.

she has stated that she would uphold the democratic will of the scottish parliament even if it went against her beliefs. she has an opportunity right now to do that, by standing up to westminster over the use of Section 35...but she's not doing it. so turns out, democracy isn't a hill she's willing to die on.

someone should ask her how she feels about the arts, and what her views are about dinosaurs. could be very revealing.

all in all, this whole situation demonstrates beyond doubt that she is, if nothing else, far too naive for the top job - which is understandable, a she's only 32.

Does she not believe in Dinosaurs? Please tell me that's true.

[J-C]

Yes.

Rather easily offended considering it's a football fans website.

[J-C]

Does she not believe in Dinosaurs? Please tell me that's true.

See the Eddie Izzard sketch where he explains about dinosaurs perfectly, very funny.

[Curried]

Rather easily offended considering it's a football fans website.

Indeed ... its my upbringing.

[J-C]

Indeed ... its my upbringing.

How do you survive through a match with all the swearing going on around you, you must be at boiling point after 90 mins.

[ElginHibbie]

Does she not believe in Dinosaurs? Please tell me that's true.

https://twitter.com/EuanYours/status/1628016531643813889?s=20

[Ozyhibby]

Her statement released today. Good that she is fighting on. Has a lot of work to do. Good that she recognises that some of her statements were offensive to some people.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230223/2bd7362a156fc8a8cefd347da80cf371.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230223/25d2155742af9cc5e5073e5cd7d40497.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230223/91443d0f96429291a4ccd5f1fa4c6901.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230223/01d88fa69c970b0618ee6bb7a7733713.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

Does she not believe in Dinosaurs? Please tell me that's true.

i don't know, but it would be worth asking her, because the Free Church kicked up a fuss about 10 years ago when creationism was taken off the school curriculum.

there are loads of really lovely people within the Free Church, but their beliefs are fundamentalist in essence.

[Kato]

Would the FM be expected to resolve any issue on their own without gaining support from their Cabinet or Parliament? Seem to remember the outgoing FM saying recently the SG held collective responsibilty, can't mind what issue she was talking about at the time though.Checks and balances, yes they exist. Balancing the views of ancient tribal law would take a hell of a counter weight and those checks and balances shouldn't have to wear that kind of duress. What if an actual nutter started placing their own people in the posts of those checks and balances? Hypothetical but look at the regression in society over the pond for an example. No place for it these days and I'd rather take my chances with a FM who doesn't come from a culture which seeks to shun and belittle people based on airy fairy stuff that comes from the darkest days of Scotland/Ancient Palestine. The Scottish Enlightenment was a great thing but only took place inside the heads of a couple of hundred intellectuals, the real lives of people were untouched by it until the 20th century.

What place does the beliefs of the Wee Free Church deserve in the 21stC? Nowhere is my answer.

All my opinion of course. The SNP can knock themselves out contorting their progressive aims while also accommodating the least progressive people but its not washing with me.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

Indeed ... its my upbringing.

yeah, and I respected that and changed my post - are you going to answer the questions i posed? :dunno:

[Curried]

How do you survive through a match with all the swearing going on around you, you must be at boiling point after 90 mins.

I live-and-let live and am never usually concerned. But mostly, I think it's an outcome for people who have had little schooling and lack any vocabulary.

[AgentDaleCooper]

I live-and-let live and am never usually concerned. But mostly, I think it's an outcome for people who have had little schooling and lack any vocabulary.

Not read much modern Scottish literature then, have you! (cf. James Kelman, Tom Leonard, Irvine Welsh etc.)

tbf - i was swearing at you, so i thought your objection was sort of fair enough - I'm sure if someone in the stands at a game swore at me I wouldn't particularly appreciate it, though I'd probably just ignore it.

[Kato]

I live-and-let live and am never usually concerned. But mostly, I think it's an outcome for people who have had little schooling and lack any vocabulary.This report claims your viewpoint is outrageously erroneous.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Zambernardi1875]

Her statement released today. Good that she is fighting on. Has a lot of work to do. Good that she recognises that some of her statements were offensive to some people.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230223/2bd7362a156fc8a8cefd347da80cf371.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230223/25d2155742af9cc5e5073e5cd7d40497.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230223/91443d0f96429291a4ccd5f1fa4c6901.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230223/01d88fa69c970b0618ee6bb7a7733713.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Liked that statement, Jim fairlie also backing Kate is good news. Seems this witch-hunt has been started from the top to put humza in charge and keep the gravytrain rolling

[Curried]

Not read much modern Scottish literature then, have you! (cf. James Kelman, Tom Leonard, Irvine Welsh etc.)

tbf - i was swearing at you, so i thought your objection was sort of fair enough - I'm sure if someone in the stands at a game swore at me I wouldn't particularly appreciate it, though I'd probably just ignore it.

I have and, I love Brookmyre (the Buddy) in particular. He has the ability to tell a compelling story without relying on a profanity every second sentence as if it was Billy Connolly.

I do, however, take your point that it is commonplace in current Scottish literature...it just wasn't when I was a lad.

[Ozyhibby]

Liked that statement, Jim fairlie also backing Kate is good news. Seems this witch-hunt has been started from the top to put humza in charge and keep the gravytrain rolling

It’s a decent start. She’ll be asked all the same questions again and she needs to have better answers next time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[J-C]

This report claims your viewpoint is outrageously erroneous.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Well **** me.😁

[Curried]

This report claims your viewpoint is outrageously erroneous.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I'm not quite sure what this 905 words from a coffee-table pamphlet gets you, but i'll say egregiously deceptive. :-)

[OldEast]

This report claims your viewpoint is outrageously erroneous.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I ****ing knew I was as smart as any other ****

[Kato]

I'm not quite sure what this 905 words from a coffee-table pamphlet gets you, but i'll say egregiously deceptive. :-)I refuse to ignore science. ;.)

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Curried]

I refuse to ignore science. ;.)

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I have to work harder on convincing people to believe in science and god at the same time.

[AgentDaleCooper]

I have to work harder on convincing people to believe in science and god at the same time.

start with Kate Forbes :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

Her statement released today. Good that she is fighting on. Has a lot of work to do. Good that she recognises that some of her statements were offensive to some people.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230223/2bd7362a156fc8a8cefd347da80cf371.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230223/25d2155742af9cc5e5073e5cd7d40497.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230223/91443d0f96429291a4ccd5f1fa4c6901.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230223/01d88fa69c970b0618ee6bb7a7733713.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a good response, IMHO.

Hopefully people can now move on.

[He's here!]

exactly. total false dichotomy.

i don't want a bigot as first minister, no matter how honest they are about their bigotry.

people are seeing what they want to see in Kate Forbes. IMO, people are unconvinced by the other two candidates and wishing that Forbes was something that she's not. As a native Gaelic speaker myself, I would absolutely love to think that she's the solution - but she isn't.

as i keep saying, she's actually already contradicted herself, wilfully or not, by saying that she holds democracy as the highest value to defend, yet isn't standing up to Westminster over their use of Section 35. She has an 'oven-ready' opportunity to put her money where her mouth is, but she's not doing it. That isn't honesty - it's a red flag.

Yes I think folk were seeing her as the least worst option (is Regan still standing BTW?!) and endowing her with qualities she doesn't have. She should have bowed out gracefully as this baggage is only going to follow her around. Sturgeon making it clear she doesn't support her should have hastened her decision.

[Hibrandenburg]

Do people actually get insulted about someone having another opinion than them? I really couldn't care less what KF thinks about sex outside marriage, I care about her ability to be FM and improve things like the economy.

She's simply said her faith doesn't agree with people having sex outside marriage. Is that really that insulting? People must be very thin skinned.

I have lots of views around religion but try and keep them to myself because I know people are thin skinned. Being religious seems to give people a licence to say things that criticise others way of life but woe betide anyone criticises religion. It's almost as if they believe they have God on their side.

[Since90+2]

exactly. total false dichotomy.

i don't want a bigot as first minister, no matter how honest they are about their bigotry.

people are seeing what they want to see in Kate Forbes. IMO, people are unconvinced by the other two candidates and wishing that Forbes was something that she's not. As a native Gaelic speaker myself, I would absolutely love to think that she's the solution - but she isn't.

as i keep saying, she's actually already contradicted herself, wilfully or not, by saying that she holds democracy as the highest value to defend, yet isn't standing up to Westminster over their use of Section 35. She has an 'oven-ready' opportunity to put her money where her mouth is, but she's not doing it. That isn't honesty - it's a red flag.

I'm not getting the native Gaelic speaker reference. I'd be amazed if anyone, outside a tiny minority, and almost certainly none on this forum, have that as a consideration in any way whatsoever.

Am I missing something?

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/kate-forbes-feels-burdened-and-heartsore-that-comments-caused-hurt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I'm not getting the native Gaelic speaker reference. I'd be amazed if anyone, outside a tiny minority, and almost certainly none on this forum, have that as a consideration in any way whatsoever.

Am I missing something?

Forbes is a Gaelic speaker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

I have to work harder on convincing people to believe in science and god at the same time.If I were religious I wouldn't necessarily believe in God, but would have faith in him.

Science is a no-brainer, if that phrase is apt.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

I'm not getting the native Gaelic speaker reference. I'd be amazed if anyone, outside a tiny minority, and almost certainly none on this forum, have that as a consideration in any way whatsoever.

Am I missing something?

i just meant that i would absolutely love it if she didn't have bigoted views, because as a Gaelic speaker myself, it would be quite nice to have a Gaelic speaking first minister...but i'm not going to overlook or explain away what she has said just because i wish she hadn't said it.

[Curried]

start with Kate Forbes :wink:

:aok:

[WhileTheChief..]

I have lots of views around religion but try and keep them to myself because I know people are thin skinned. Being religious seems to give people a licence to say things that criticise others way of life but woe betide anyone criticises religion. It's almost as if they believe they have God on their side.

I'm almost the opposite!!

I think every religion should be mocked at every opportunity.

To ignore science because it goes against some weird belief system handed down by your parents is ridiculous. Hearing Prime Ministers or Presidents talking of God is mental in this day and age.

If anyone is offended by that, tough, it's no different to believing in Unicorns. The dinosaur question is a valid one.

[Since90+2]

i just meant that i would absolutely love it if she didn't have bigoted views, because as a Gaelic speaker myself, it would be quite nice to have a Gaelic speaking first minister...but i'm not going to overlook or explain away what she has said just because i wish she hadn't said it.

Ok, gotcha, thanks.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I'm almost the opposite!!

I think every religion should be mocked at every opportunity.

To ignore science because it goes against some weird belief system handed down by your parents is ridiculous. Hearing Prime Ministers or Presidents talking of God is mental in this day and age.

If anyone is offended by that, tough, it's no different to believing in Unicorns. The dinosaur question is a valid one.

Even science is open to ridicule, particularly when quantum physics rips apart everything we think we know about the reality around us. Knowledge only goes as far as the brains ability to process and for all we know, our brains ability to process doesn't even scratch the surface of the true nature of reality that surrounds us.

[WhileTheChief..]

Even science is open to ridicule, particularly when quantum physics rips apart everything we think we know about the reality around us. Knowledge only goes as far as the brains ability to process and for all we know, our brains ability to process doesn't even scratch the surface of the true nature of reality that surrounds us.

I'd say scrutiny more than ridicule, but i take the point.

It's a good thing.

Not so sure many religions would stand up to the same level of scrutiny as science does though!

[Bristolhibby]

Even science is open to ridicule, particularly when quantum physics rips apart everything we think we know about the reality around us. Knowledge only goes as far as the brains ability to process and for all we know, our brains ability to process doesn't even scratch the surface of the true nature of reality that surrounds us.

That’s the difference, scientists are open to be proven wrong. They accept they don’t know everything. Their experiments are exactly that. A test. And then they can base their hypothesis on evidence.

Religion is the opposite. It assumes itself to be right and wants proof to the contrary.

J

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That’s the difference, scientists are open to be proven wrong. They accept they don’t know everything. Their experiments are exactly that. A test. And then they can base their hypothesis on evidence.

Religion is the opposite. It assumes itself to be right and wants proof to the contrary.

J

I don't really see it as two different extremes. You'll find scientists that state things as "fact", until those facts inevitably change and you'll find religious followers who accept that their beliefs are based around nothing more than faith, which they're perfectly fine with because they feel that their faith improves their overall quality of life, no proof required.

[McD]

Is offended the correct word here? I'm not offended by her beliefs, she's entitled to them and can believe whatever she likes whether I agree with them or not. I dont agree with her views and I support those people they belittle but the use of the word "offended" has been weaponised and downgraded to allow her views a validity they don't deserve, IMHO. People who are gay or born out of wedlock might actually be offended or might not but they are belittling towards those people and that's an unnecessary angle to put out there.

The question is are her beliefs compatible with being the FM of Scotland and how will they colour the direction she takes the country. SNP members might be concerned about that and also whether the will affect the direction their party takes whether in power or not. I'm old enough to remember when religious organisations were up in arms as to whether football matches should take place on a Sunday or not. Not something most people were bothered about at the time but the views of religious leaders were allowed take over the headlines for weeks. Sunday football was allowed because it didn't matter how much religious people complained, they didn't have the power to stop it.

I'm not offended by what she says I just find her private views archaic and not really suitable given the way society has moved. At a more granular level I don't believe christians who give credence to ancient tribal Law are christians at all, as they ignore Christ's teachings, but thats up to them.

If she were in power and an issue came up which she found difficult to resolve due to her religious point of view she's hamstringing her direction from the off. Not politically objective and not a position I want the FM of Scotland to put themselves in.

The "people are too easily offended" tack is such a cliche and is an avenue to validate all sorts of ****housery and is an attempt to shut people up.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk


great post :thumbsup:

[AgentDaleCooper]

great post :thumbsup:

the only bit of Kato's post I'm not totally sure about is when he refers to 'ancient tribal law' - I don't think that's what makes the Free Church so reactionary. Rather, it's the Calvinist, i.e. fundamentalist roots, that found fertile ground in the midst of a humanitarian and cultural disaster in the 17 and 1800s. When people are stripped of their culture and cleared off their homes - basically their existential context - it's not surprising that they take solace in extreme beliefs. What we have now a legacy of colonialism, and one of the columns of a kind of spiritual and cultural Stockholm syndrome that a great deal of people in Gaelic speaking areas suffer from.

[McD]

the only bit of Kato's post I'm not totally sure about is when he refers to 'ancient tribal law' - I don't think that's what makes the Free Church so reactionary. Rather, it's the Calvinist, i.e. fundamentalist roots, that found fertile ground in the midst of a humanitarian and cultural disaster in the 17 and 1800s. When people are stripped of their culture and cleared off their homes - basically their existential context - it's not surprising that they take solace in extreme beliefs. What we have now a legacy of colonialism, and one of the columns of a kind of spiritual and cultural Stockholm syndrome that a great deal of people in Gaelic speaking areas suffer from.


I don’t know much about the Free Church, so happy to take your word on this mate :aok:

my thoughts were on the broad gist of Kato’s post, that it’s KF’s right to hold the beliefs she has, and it’s equally other people’s right to choose not to vote for her or want to have someone who holds those views so strongly as the leader of the country

[He's here!]

Is offended the correct word here? I'm not offended by her beliefs, she's entitled to them and can believe whatever she likes whether I agree with them or not. I dont agree with her views and I support those people they belittle but the use of the word "offended" has been weaponised and downgraded to allow her views a validity they don't deserve, IMHO. People who are gay or born out of wedlock might actually be offended or might not but they are belittling towards those people and that's an unnecessary angle to put out there.

The question is are her beliefs compatible with being the FM of Scotland and how will they colour the direction she takes the country. SNP members might be concerned about that and also whether the will affect the direction their party takes whether in power or not. I'm old enough to remember when religious organisations were up in arms as to whether football matches should take place on a Sunday or not. Not something most people were bothered about at the time but the views of religious leaders were allowed take over the headlines for weeks. Sunday football was allowed because it didn't matter how much religious people complained, they didn't have the power to stop it.

I'm not offended by what she says I just find her private views archaic and not really suitable given the way society has moved. At a more granular level I don't believe christians who give credence to ancient tribal Law are christians at all, as they ignore Christ's teachings, but thats up to them.

If she were in power and an issue came up which she found difficult to resolve due to her religious point of view she's hamstringing her direction from the off. Not politically objective and not a position I want the FM of Scotland to put themselves in.

The "people are too easily offended" tack is such a cliche and is an avenue to validate all sorts of ****housery and is an attempt to shut people up.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Agree with this.

According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, in 1990 (the year Forbes was born) nearly 60% of people in Britain thought 'sexual relations between two adults of the same sex' were 'always wrong'. Just 10 years later that figure was down to 37% and by 2012 it was less than 20%. A rapid social transformation.

That Forbes still holds such views in spite of the number of marriages celebrated by gay Scots since 2014 is, as you say, her own business, but as FM it would put her wildly out of step with the direction of social travel.

[James310]

What happens if Kate Forbes wins the leadership contest but doesn't get the votes to be FM? Can't see the Greens and some SNP MSPs voting for her now so does that leave the door open for Anas Sarwar or even Douglas Ross.....

[Kato]

the only bit of Kato's post I'm not totally sure about is when he refers to 'ancient tribal law' - I don't think that's what makes the Free Church so reactionary. Rather, it's the Calvinist, i.e. fundamentalist roots, that found fertile ground in the midst of a humanitarian and cultural disaster in the 17 and 1800s. When people are stripped of their culture and cleared off their homes - basically their existential context - it's not surprising that they take solace in extreme beliefs. What we have now a legacy of colonialism, and one of the columns of a kind of spiritual and cultural Stockholm syndrome that a great deal of people in Gaelic speaking areas suffer from."Ancient tribal law" - I'm merely talking about adherence to Old Testament Laws. If someone is portraying themselves as "christian" there is little place for the old covenant as christ preached a new covenant. The OT God is a vengeful, angry, warmongering, jealous prat of a God - weirdly for a supposed monotheistic sect Yahweh is particularly jealous of "other Gods". The NT God is a different dude altogether, forgiving and loving. Christians refering to Leviticus or the lunacy which is Deuteronomy tells me they don't understand Christianity. But, they are entitled to their views and their wizards are entitled to dress up in their costumes and chant their spells.

I'm a complete heathen btw and believe we are all spiritual animals who should be excellent to each other while we are here. I don't need a set of books from an obscure, tiny sect from thousands of years ago to educated me in feeling that. Great literature but so is Homer and Gilgamesh - an accident of history has put it those writings in a position they were never, ever designed to be.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

or even Douglas Ross.....

Boom tish, you're getting funnier.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

"Ancient tribal law" - I'm merely talking about adherence to Old Testament Laws. If someone is portraying themselves as "christian" there is little place for the old covenant as christ preached a new covenant. The OT God is a vengeful, angry, warmongering, jealous prat of a God - weirdly for a supposed monotheistic sect Yahweh is particularly jealous of "other Gods". The NT God is a different dude altogether, forgiving and loving. Christians refering to Leviticus or the lunacy which is Deuteronomy tells me they don't understand Christianity. But, they are entitled to their views and their wizards are entitled to dress up in their costumes and chant their spells.

I'm a complete heathen btw and believe we are all spiritual animals who should be excellent to each other while we are here. I don't need a set of books from an obscure, tiny sect from thousands of years ago to educated me in feeling that. Great literature but so is Homer and Gilgamesh - an accident of history has put it those writings in a position they were never, ever designed to be.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

gotcha :aok:

me too - though I've actually recently ordered a bible in Gaelic, just because I feel like I should know that part of my 'roots' as well as the romantic celtic aspect.

the closest thing I'll have - and will ever want - to religion is Carl Sagan. "we are the universe's way of experiencing itself". done. thanks carl :not worth

[Kato]

gotcha :aok:

me too - though I've actually recently ordered a bible in Gaelic, just because I feel like I should know that part of my 'roots' as well as the romantic celtic aspect.

the closest thing I'll have - and will ever want - to religion is Carl Sagan. "we are the universe's way of experiencing itself". done. thanks carl :not worthI had a Manga Bible which someone chored.

One of the goriest comics ever.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

What happens if Kate Forbes wins the leadership contest but doesn't get the votes to be FM? Can't see the Greens and some SNP MSPs voting for her now so does that leave the door open for Anas Sarwar or even Douglas Ross.....

That's an interesting question.

How does the parliamentary vote to be FM work? Would it be a 1v1, or can anyone put their hat in the ring, even someone else from the SNP?

[Iain G]

I'm almost the opposite!!

I think every religion should be mocked at every opportunity.

To ignore science because it goes against some weird belief system handed down by your parents is ridiculous. Hearing Prime Ministers or Presidents talking of God is mental in this day and age.

If anyone is offended by that, tough, it's no different to believing in Unicorns. The dinosaur question is a valid one.

But unicorns are real!

[James310]

That's an interesting question.

How does the parliamentary vote to be FM work? Would it be a 1v1, or can anyone put their hat in the ring, even someone else from the SNP?

The new FM just needs the most votes that's all.

So say Kate Forbes wins the leadership election and she is put forward for FM. The Greens abstain and say 10 SNP MSPs refuse to vote for her, that brings her votes to 54 I believe. If Anas Sarwar runs he gets his 22 votes from his MSPs and if he offers the Tories and Lib Dems some key positions in his cabinet he gets there votes as well. That puts him on 22+31+7 so that puts him on 59 votes. He is the new FM.

Edit - in this scenario he won't have enough numbers to pass any legislation though so assume we would collapse the parliament and we would have another election. The SNP still have the problem of Kate Forbes as the democratically elected leader of their party though.

[He's here!]

I'm almost the opposite!!

I think every religion should be mocked at every opportunity.

To ignore science because it goes against some weird belief system handed down by your parents is ridiculous. Hearing Prime Ministers or Presidents talking of God is mental in this day and age.

If anyone is offended by that, tough, it's no different to believing in Unicorns. The dinosaur question is a valid one.

I recall Alistair Campbell being asked about religion with regard to the Blair/Brown era. He replied: "We don't do God".

Think it was in response to Blair being asked about his faith.

[danhibees1875]

The new FM just needs the most votes that's all.

So say Kate Forbes wins the leadership election and she is put forward for FM. The Greens abstain and say 10 SNP MSPs refuse to vote for her, that brings her votes to 54 I believe. If Anas Sarwar runs he gets his 22 votes from his MSPs and if he offers the Tories and Lib Dems some key positions in his cabinet he gets there votes as well. That puts him on 22+31+7 so that puts him on 59 votes. He is the new FM.

Edit - in this scenario he won't have enough numbers to pass any legislation though so assume we would collapse the parliament and we would have another election. The SNP still have the problem of Kate Forbes as the democratically elected leader of their party though.

:aok:

I think generally the SNP MSPs would reconcile their thoughts with the bigger picture and vote in KF. But time shall tell...

[marinello59]

Nominations close at noon today so one of these three is going to be the new First Minister.

[Santa Cruz]

I recall Alistair Campbell being asked about religion with regard to the Blair/Brown era. He replied: "We don't do God".

Think it was in response to Blair being asked about his faith.

Blair converted to Catholicism soon after leaving as PM afair.

[James310]

Nominations close at noon today so one of these three is going to be the new First Minister.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kate-forbes-most-popular-candidate-29296053

So Kate Forbes spent the week telling voters their marriages were illegitimate & their families immoral & SNP voters still prefer her to Humza Yousaf.

[marinello59]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kate-forbes-most-popular-candidate-29296053

So Kate Forbes spent the week telling voters their marriages were illegitimate & their families immoral & SNP voters still prefer her to Humza Yousaf.

That’s not really what she said is it?

She’s by far the most politically competent candidate of the three. If she can move this on to other issues she can still win this. I’m no SNP supporter but for Scotland’s sake I hope she does.

[Moulin Yarns]

What happens if Kate Forbes wins the leadership contest but doesn't get the votes to be FM? Can't see the Greens and some SNP MSPs voting for her now so does that leave the door open for Anas Sarwar or even Douglas Ross.....

Or Alex Cole Hamilton 😂

[Santa Cruz]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kate-forbes-most-popular-candidate-29296053

So Kate Forbes spent the week telling voters their marriages were illegitimate & their families immoral & SNP voters still prefer her to Humza Yousaf.

Voters don't get a vote on this election, it's only members. It's interesting but the poll is pretty meaningless.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kate-forbes-most-popular-candidate-29296053

Just goes to show that the public don’t really care about these culture war issues as much as the political class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Voters don't get a vote on this election, it's only members. It's interesting but the poll is pretty meaningless.

I would have thought the actual members i.e. the ones that pay each month would actually be more in favor of Kate Forbes. Do we know what the demographics of the SNP membership is?

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/robjohns75/status/1628837718955368449?s=46&t=6AUQIWLbHCmEExd-MTxw3A

Interesting thread on the make up of SNP members. There is still a route to Forbes winning. Members seem to be older than voters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kate-forbes-most-popular-candidate-29296053

Just goes to show that the public don’t really care about these culture war issues as much as the political class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it's not 'culture war issues' to worry about the effects of having a FM that things children born out of wedlock, abortion and gay marriage are 'wrong'. by using that term to cast aside these concerns you're arguably perpetuating the 'culture wars' trope.

this is about the consequences of having an explicit bigot as First Minister, i.e. legitimizing and normalising regressive, reactionary attitudes. this will take society in Scotland backwards. It's bare 30 years since a majority of people thought being gay was 'wrong'. People must not take this for granted.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://twitter.com/robjohns75/status/1628837718955368449?s=46&t=6AUQIWLbHCmEExd-MTxw3A

Interesting thread on the make up of SNP members. There is still a route to Forbes winning. Members seem to be older than voters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was interesting thanks

[James310]

Humza is being challenged on why he never voted for same sex marriage. Reading the accounts in the article it does sound like be deliberately planned to miss it.

https://archive.ph/4jFhU

"But Mr Neil, who led the gay marriage Bill through parliament, was emphatic, telling the Herald: "The truth is he asked to be 'skipped' because he was under pressure and he then arranged a ministerial meeting, and that was his cover for not voting, and if he says anything different it’s not true.
"There was no reason why that meeting had to be at the same time as the vote on the Bill.”

Apparently the meeting was in the Parliament building as well so don't see why he could still not of voted.

[AgentDaleCooper]

That’s not really what she said is it?

She’s by far the most politically competent candidate of the three. If she can move this on to other issues she can still win this. I’m no SNP supporter but for Scotland’s sake I hope she does.

she's basically said that a bunch of things often relating to disadvantaged/minority people are 'wrong', then issued a very lengthy 'i'm sorry if what i said upset you, i thought you'd like it and i feel burdened that it made you sad' post.

the fact is, she's only 32. her 'competency' as far as i'm aware amounts to being clever, articulate and very good at maths. however, putting the content and consequences of her beliefs to one side, her decision making in this whole situation has been terrible. she's created this mess entirely herself, and what people are calling a 'witch hunt' is actually just simply very justifiable scrutiny of a potential first minister's bigoted christian fundamentalist beliefs which she has made public.

people are understandably seeing what they want to see in her, or rather not seeing what they don't want to see, because she does have more of an air of competence than Yousef, isn't as much of a legacy candidate, and is less of an unknown quantity than Regan. She's basically people's choice by default, which is a grim situation for the SNP, but doesn't make her the right choice for society. I think she'd actually do a lot of damage to the SNP, as there is a serious portion of the electorate (particularly younger and/or socially progressive people) who simply wouldn't vote for her. Could benefit the Greens, though.

I absolutely agree that economics is also a totally vital issue - but she's still not really said anything about what her policies are, other than the usual 'boo inequality, yay growth' stuff which doesn't really tell us very much other than she's to the left of Sunak :dunno:

even if her policies are great, for me and for many others, there are some red line issues, and bigotry is one of them. she is absolutely not fit to lead a major party. the good news is that she's only 32, so she's got plenty of time to reflect on these problems if she wants another crack at leading a progressive country.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Humza is being challenged on why he never voted for same sex marriage. Reading the accounts in the article it does sound like be deliberately planned to miss it.

https://archive.ph/4jFhU

"But Mr Neil, who led the gay marriage Bill through parliament, was emphatic, telling the Herald: "The truth is he asked to be 'skipped' because he was under pressure and he then arranged a ministerial meeting, and that was his cover for not voting, and if he says anything different it’s not true.
"There was no reason why that meeting had to be at the same time as the vote on the Bill.”

Apparently the meeting was in the Parliament building as well so don't see why he could still not of voted.

The bill was going to make it through parliament comfortably anyway. So it's not as if his absence ultimately had any bearing on anything.

[James310]

The bill was going to make it through parliament comfortably anyway. So it's not as if his absence ultimately had any baring on anything.

True, but if he deliberately missed it due to him not wanting to vote for it we deserve the truth. I suspect he himself may be ok with it, but as his religion doesn't approve he would have been under pressure from his community to not vote for it.

[CropleyWasGod]

The bill was going to make it through parliament comfortably anyway. So it's not as if his absence ultimately had any bearing on anything.

He had also voted in favour of the bill at its earlier stages.

[James310]

He had also voted in favour of the bill at its earlier stages.

He did, and it could be that's when the pressure was applied. I guess we will never know, but the excuse of the meeting that just happened to be on the same day and actually in the same building but somehow he could not vote is weak to say the least.

[Stairway 2 7]

Humza or nothing for the hierarchy according to this, self destruct button pressed

@Record_Politics
EXCLUSIVE: SNP MSPs are planning to scupper Kate Forbes’ bid to lead the country by refusing to vote for her as First Minister
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-msps-vote-against-kate-29296454

[TrumpIsAPeado]

He had also voted in favour of the bill at its earlier stages.

James won't want that part of the truth getting out.

[Ozyhibby]

Humza or nothing for the hierarchy according to this, self destruct button pressed

@Record_Politics
EXCLUSIVE: SNP MSPs are planning to scupper Kate Forbes’ bid to lead the country by refusing to vote for her as First Minister
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-msps-vote-against-kate-29296454

I doubt that would happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

James won't want that part of the truth getting out.

Why not, when his community saw how he voted that could be when the pressure was applied. As far as I know he voted in no further stages, only stage 1.

[CropleyWasGod]

I doubt that would happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The word "some" is missing from the headline.:rolleyes: