Next permanent Scotland manager

[Antlion]

21 minutes ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said:

Have we established if Forbes actually follows every part of the bible? Or only select snippets?

I’ve never seen her cook a goat in the milk of its mother, to be fair.

[Donathan]

The de facto referendum idea is never going to work because the unionist parties won't be standing on a one line manifesto of opposing independence. Even if the SNP get their 50% + 1, the UK government will simply refuse to enter independence negotiations.

 

By far the most likely route to a legally binding independence referendum being granted is that the next UK General Election (Or any subsequent UK GE) results in a hung parliament with Scotland continuing to return a large contingent of SNP MPs who could be relied upon to ensure that the Prime Minister enjoys majority support in the house of commons. If the SNP threaten to vote down the UK government unless a referendum is granted, then the section 30 power might be granted.

 

The way the polls are looking just now though, Keir Starmer is going to waltz into number 10 with a stomping majority whether or not the Scottish constituencies stick with the SNP or turn back to Labour, and that will mean independence is dead in the water until 2029 at least.

 

The Holyrood elections are not directly relevant to the independence cause, although the SNP should continue to prioritise winning them in order to try and prove to voters that they do a better job at governing Scotland than any WM government and to stand up for Scottish interests. They're not a route to independence though and the only reason they have been in the past is because David Cameron didn't resist the calls for a section 30 in the way that his four successors have.

[alta-pete]

41 minutes ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said:

Have we established if Forbes actually follows every part of the bible? Or only select snippets?

If she’s gone as far as declaring sex before marriage and having a child out of wedlock as being sinful I think it a reasonable conclusion to your concern that she follows ‘enough’, probably more than most and I’d wager more than ‘only selected snippets’.

But I don’t see what you are you driving at?

[Richey Edwards]

2 hours ago, Trogdor said:

Are there any murmurings of a fourth candidate? I need hope...

I think Obi-Wan is deid m8.

Unless you want his force ghost to be FM, which would be quite something. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Richey Edwards

[Cheese]

Jar Jar Binks would have a decent chance against this lot tbf.

[scottsdad]

16 minutes ago, Bodie said:

Jar Jar Binks would have a decent chance against this lot tbf.

"Welcome to STV News, Mr Binks. First off, let me ask: if a woman has a penis, is that woman a man or a woman?"

[Rugster]

51 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

If she’s gone as far as declaring sex before marriage and having a child out of wedlock as being sinful I think it a reasonable conclusion to your concern that she follows ‘enough’, probably more than most and I’d wager more than ‘only selected snippets’.

But I don’t see what you are you driving at?

 

 

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

 

That's looking like the first torpedo into a stricken battleship as well. Fair play to Jenkins that's a terrific bit of blindsiding as well.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Genuine Hibs Fan

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

25 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

 

That's looking like the first torpedo into a stricken battleship as well. Fair play to Jenkins that's a terrific bit of blindsiding as well.

Regan doing a great job of dispelling the accusations that she's the Vichy Alba Da candidate.

[Salt n Vinegar]

37 minutes ago, Rugster said:

 

 

That's a great clip. Pity I can only greenie it once. As I recall, Bartlett was a devout Roman Catholic in the series. I've said before that he's possibly the best President the USA never had. 

[Empty It]

1 hour ago, Bodie said:

Jar Jar Binks would have a decent chance against this lot tbf.

Would speak more sense than John Swinney anyway.

[Rod1877]

3 hours ago, Anonapersona said:

The problem with overly religious people is that they tend to fall back on their beliefs for guidance. She might say that she'll keep her faith out of politics, and it might actually be true at the time.

At the end of the day it will interfere in her capability to make fair decisions.

I see these people every day.

Everyone falls back on their beliefs for guidance.  Everyone has a worldview.  Nobody is neutral.  

[Richey Edwards]

1 hour ago, Bodie said:

Jar Jar Binks would have a decent chance against this lot tbf.

Jar Jar Binks is actually a Sith lord m8.

[Anonapersona]

14 minutes ago, Rod1877 said:

Everyone falls back on their beliefs for guidance.  Everyone has a worldview.  Nobody is neutral.  

I meant religious beliefs and how they may affect political decisions.

I agree about worldviews and neutrality but those things weren't in my post.

 

[Anonapersona]

1 minute ago, Anonapersona said:

I meant religious beliefs and how they may affect political decisions.

I agree about worldviews and neutrality but those things weren't in my post.

 

Well I suppose they are, just not in the way I intended.

[Shuggie_Murray7]

2 hours ago, alta-pete said:

If she’s gone as far as declaring sex before marriage and having a child out of wedlock as being sinful I think it a reasonable conclusion to your concern that she follows ‘enough’, probably more than most and I’d wager more than ‘only selected snippets’.

But I don’t see what you are you driving at?

I just wondered if she only believed that gay marriage was wrong and a sin. Or does she also want women found to be adulterers to sup only dirty water. What are her views on Christians not eating fat or blood? 

[Rod1877]

14 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

That's a great clip. Pity I can only greenie it once. As I recall, Bartlett was a devout Roman Catholic in the series. I've said before that he's possibly the best President the USA never had. 

I miss the Bartlett presidency.  However, this clip is simply trotting out the straw man stuff seen elsewhere on this thread. 

There are undoubtedly many things in Old Testament laws that are strange to the ears of modern readers but the laws around things like shellfish eating, mixed threads and so on present no issue for Christians.  Very roughly, you have three categories:

Judicial laws - these are the codification of an entire legal system for a brand new nation living among people groups that were involved in all sorts of practices that God wanted Israel to distance themselves from.  Some of the laws that we think sound terrible are actually radical protections against some of the worst excesses of the time.   God basically wanted his people to be well governed, orderly and different.

Ceremonial laws/sacrifices - these were designed to highlight the holiness of God and the lengths that sinful people had to go to for their worship to be acceptable to him.  They needed constant repetition (for repeated sinning!), were always intended to be symbolic and always pointed towards an ultimate once for all sacrifice for sins - the death of Jesus Christ.  Once that final sacrifice was made, the others were no longer needed.

Moral laws - these were about how people should live in relation to God and their fellow human beings and are summarised in the 10 commandments.  Jesus summarised this as loving God and loving our neighbour.   There remains some debate about overlaps between the moral law and some of the judicial laws.  Eating shellfish is not one of those overlaps!

The New Testament makes clear that the first two categories are not binding on Christians, whereas its teaching on all sorts of things from human sexuality to greed to treatment of the poor, lying and so on indicates that the moral law continues to apply.  Even then, salvation doesn't come from adherence to the moral law but from trust in Jesus Christ. 

Apologies, maybe this should have gone on the Christian theology thread!

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

3 minutes ago, Rod1877 said:

I miss the Bartlett presidency.  However, this clip is simply trotting out the straw man stuff seen elsewhere on this thread. 

There are undoubtedly many things in Old Testament laws that are strange to the ears of modern readers but the laws around things like shellfish eating, mixed threads and so on present no issue for Christians.  Very roughly, you have three categories:

Judicial laws - these are the codification of an entire legal system for a brand new nation living among people groups that were involved in all sorts of practices that God wanted Israel to distance themselves from.  Some of the laws that we think sound terrible are actually radical protections against some of the worst excesses of the time.   God basically wanted his people to be well governed, orderly and different.

Ceremonial laws/sacrifices - these were designed to highlight the holiness of God and the lengths that sinful people had to go to for their worship to be acceptable to him.  They needed constant repetition (for repeated sinning!), were always intended to be symbolic and always pointed towards an ultimate once for all sacrifice for sins - the death of Jesus Christ.  Once that final sacrifice was made, the others were no longer needed.

Moral laws - these were about how people should live in relation to God and their fellow human beings and are summarised in the 10 commandments.  Jesus summarised this as loving God and loving our neighbour.   There remains some debate about overlaps between the moral law and some of the judicial laws.  Eating shellfish is not one of those overlaps!

The New Testament makes clear that the first two categories are not binding on Christians, whereas its teaching on all sorts of things from human sexuality to greed to treatment of the poor, lying and so on indicates that the moral law continues to apply.  Even then, salvation doesn't come from adherence to the moral law but from trust in Jesus Christ. 

Apologies, maybe this should have gone on the Christian theology thread!

Fantastic post.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

4 hours ago, Darren said:

The one silver lining to this Forbes bigotry cloud has been a day or two without talking about fucking independence. 

Is it naive to think we could maybe have a day or two a month when the focus is on issues like education and health rather than debating different ways to fail to get a referendum?

Maybe and hear me out here. But a political party whose whole reason for being is to deliver an independent Scotland might actually want a leader who has a strategy for achieving that goal.

This is the primary reason Sturgeon resigned. She was out of ideas and how far she was willing to go.

You can't remove independence from the health or education debate. Working within the current UK framework is one of the reasons why things are so bad.  UK growth is horrendous, UK health outcomes are declining, UK education is shit too. The "Attainment Gap" on similar measures is worse in England (according to 2018 report, though not entirely reliable since Scotland has a limited set of PISA scores)

Only a fundamental breaking from UK  policy willl uncouple Scotland from the UK's decline (now maybe it becomes worse under independence but right now we are tied to the UK and will not control our own future until independence is achieved)

 

 

[Billy Jean King]

3 hours ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said:

Have we established if Forbes actually follows every part of the bible? Or only select snippets?

Burning bush