Next permanent Scotland manager

[Trogdor]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'm not suggesting SNP MSPs wouldn't vote for her but she needs Green votes as well or from some other party.

The opposition would have to unite around a single candidate. In 2007, Salmond was elected FM with 49 votes from MSPs. I imagine a number of parties would simply abstain as they did then. Ironically, the 2 Green MSPs supported Salmond back then.

It is extremely unlikely. The importance of the Greens is vastly overstated by posters on here. They are an irrelevance.

[Trogdor]

We need to tackle the bigger issues facing the nation. Is it too difficult to improve the NHS, close the attainment gap, tackle inequality, reduce drug deaths, grow the economy, make taxation more progressive, deliver big infrastructure? The focus on marginal issues is started to grind my gears.

For a period now the SG has been focusing on the wrong things like the named person scheme, the hate crime bill, gender recognition reform. These had laudable aims but each has been badly implemented (or delayed or cancelled) and expended significant political capital in the process.

Its time to get on with the day job, the electorate are losing patience. The look how shit Westminster is, is no defence.

I first supported the SNP when they promised to scrap the graduate endowment and make education free and they delivered it! I am toiling at the moment and these three candidates are not inspiring me one bit.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Which wasn't what you were asking for examples of.

 

Erm yes I was - future hypotheticals of laws that would be rolled back or rights removed by the Free Church FM. It's almost as if the claim is completely ludicrous. 

[Iain]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

Erm yes I was - future hypotheticals of laws that would be rolled back or rights removed by the Free Church FM. It's almost as if the claim is completely ludicrous. 

You only have to look at the red states in America to see the carnage religious zealots can create with the power to legislate.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

In the immediacy 'buffer' zones, and the future of GRR. The Tories are not going to be around forever, so the largest obstacle looks likely to be removed by the end of 2024, and I have no faith Forbes will pick it up again once they are gone. Her idea of reforming the bill into something that will make it past westminster is a nonsense, because its abundabtly clear from the s35 documentation that there is no form they will accept that simultaneously achieves what the bill is designed to do.

1) Buffer zones are not a removal of existing rights. 

2) Your argument about GRR is all over the place. If the Tories aren't going to be around forever then your assertion that 'Westminster' will not accept any form of reform is by extension a logical fallacy. There will be a change of government which will throw the justification of a S35 order up in the air immediately. 

The wider point that it is completely foolish for the SG to expend taxpayers' money and it's dwindling political capital entering an obvious trap has been recognised by two (not very good) candidates who at least are capable of independent thought. It's no surprise that Yousaf wants to lollop in to save a dung piece of legislation, because Sturgeon passed it and he has no other leadership principle. 

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, Iain said:

You only have to look at the red states in America to see the carnage religious zealots can create with the power to legislate.

Because Scotland in 2023 is analogous with Bible Belt America and you just can't move for Free Church evangelicals praisin' the Lord all around us.

A complete and utter nonsense argument. 

[MazzyStar]

6 minutes ago, Iain said:

You only have to look at the red states in America to see the carnage religious zealots can create with the power to legislate.

This isn’t the red states in America.

[Abdul_Latif]

2 hours ago, Antlion said:

Too right they should have abstained on that. I didn’t vote for them to actively enable UK nationalism in any form. The attempts of UK nats to try and blame the SNP for its own choice to tear itself out of the EU is some take.

Some major Aberdeen voting against SPL vote reform energy there.

[Boo Khaki]

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

1) Buffer zones are not a removal of existing rights. 

2) Your argument about GRR is all over the place. If the Tories aren't going to be around forever then your assertion that 'Westminster' will not accept any form of reform is by extension a logical fallacy. There will be a change of government which will throw the justification of a S35 order up in the air immediately. 

The wider point that it is completely foolish for the SG to expend taxpayers' money and it's dwindling political capital entering an obvious trap has been recognised by two (not very good) candidates who at least are capable of independent thought. It's no surprise that Yousaf wants to lollop in to save a dung piece of legislation, because Sturgeon passed it and he has no other leadership principle. 

As others have already pointed out, you didnt ask which rights i thought Forbes would roll back, and neither did i suggest i feared she would. You specifically asked about which future hypotheticals i was concerned about. 

My point about westminster is  not 'all over the place', your comprehension apparently is. As things currently stand "westminster" refers to this tory government, which is not intetested in GRR regardless of how it is presented. I thought I was perfectly clear that I was talking about 2 years or so from now when the Tories are gone, Forbes is FM, that I do not expect her to have any appetite for submitting a GRR bill to a more accommodating Starmer government, even though its far less lilely to be blocked.

 

S35 does not cease to be in effect purely because the government that enacted it is removed, so i'm baffled as to how you have utterly mangled what was a pretty simple chain of events.

[Savage Henry]

3 hours ago, Antlion said:

Too right they should have abstained on that. I didn’t vote for them to actively enable UK nationalism in any form. The attempts of UK nats to try and blame the SNP for its own choice to tear itself out of the EU is some take.

It really is.  But it’s being echoed by the Alba wing of the SNP.  

[Anonapersona]

9 minutes ago, MazzyStar said:

This isn’t the red states in America.

No, Scotland isn't anything like the red states.

But given that Forbes has said she would use her religion as a political weapon then it's important that Scotland doesn't drift towards that nonsense.

[alta-pete]

4 minutes ago, Anonapersona said:

No, Scotland isn't anything like the red states.

But given that Forbes has said she would use her religion as a political weapon then it's important that Scotland doesn't drift towards that nonsense.

She what?

[MazzyStar]

2 minutes ago, Anonapersona said:

No, Scotland isn't anything like the red states.

But given that Forbes has said she would use her religion as a political weapon then it's important that Scotland doesn't drift towards that nonsense.

Scotland won’t drift towards that since it is supported by a tiny percentage of the population and an even smaller percentage of the parliament, unless Forbes plans on forming some sort of theocratic dictatorship but somehow I don’t think that will happen. 

[Iain]

24 minutes ago, virginton said:

Because Scotland in 2023 is analogous with Bible Belt America and you just can't move for Free Church evangelicals praisin' the Lord all around us.

A complete and utter nonsense argument. 

Religious zealots aren't the majority in those American states either. They just know how to accumulate power.

[vikingTON]

23 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

As others have already pointed out, you didnt ask which rights i thought Forbes would roll back, and neither did i suggest i feared she would. You specifically asked about which future hypotheticals i was concerned about. 

So what is the future hypothetical that involves the rolling back of rights? 

Quote

My point about westminster is  not 'all over the place', your comprehension apparently is. As things currently stand "westminster" refers to this tory government, which is not intetested in GRR regardless of how it is presented. I thought I was perfectly clear that I was talking about 2 years or so from now when the Tories are gone, Forbes is FM, that I do not expect her to have any appetite for submitting a GRR bill to a more accommodating Starmer government, even though its far less lilely to be blocked.

No, your argument that there's no chance of 'Westminster' accepting an amended bill is simply nonsense, because you've conceded that 'Westminster' will not be run by the same party within the lifetime of this Holyrood parliament. 

Forbes' argument is therefore coherent - although I incidentally agree that she probably won't pursue it. 

Quote

S35 does not cease to be in effect purely because the government that enacted it is removed, so i'm baffled as to how you have utterly mangled what was a pretty simple chain of events.

Next to nobody will care about a S35 order being placed on a dung bill that has wasted quite enough time and political capital on already. It's not a hill that any halfway-smart SNP leader should be dying on. 

[Boo Khaki]

6 minutes ago, virginton said:

So what is the future hypothetical that involves the rolling back of rights? 

Jesus suffering f**k. Why on earth are you repeatedly asking me to provide examples of a thing that I have specifically said I am not concerned about?

Perhaps it would help you if I quoted my original post that you edited down in the first place -

Quote

It's fine and well for Forbes to say she has no plans to roll back existing laws and remove existing rights, but what about future hypotheticals? If I had to put money on which of the two I believe is most likely to deliberately stand in the way of further legislation that expands the rights of minority groups, I know which of the two that would be.

For the umpteenth time, I have no concerns about Forbes rolling back rights either now or in the future. I do however, have concerns that she would be totally uninterested in enacting legislation that further enhances or offers new rights to minority groups. 

Is that clear?

Quote

No, your argument that there's no chance of 'Westminster' accepting an amended bill is simply nonsense, because you've conceded that 'Westminster' will not be run by the same party within the lifetime of this Holyrood parliament. 

Again, you seem to be completely oblivious to context.

Forbes current stated position is that she would seek to negotiate an amended GRR that the tories i.e. 'westminster' would approve before the end of this westminster government. That is an absolute nonsense because it is abundantly clear they will not accept any GRR bill that changes the status quo in any meaningful way, so it's dead in the water until such time legal action compels the Tories to drop the s35, or the Tories are removed from office and a GRR bill can be submitted to a more accommodating Labour government.

Forbes immediate position is not going to result in a Scots GRR bill being submitted for approval, and once that is yet again kyboshed by the Tories I have no faith that she, as FM, would resubmit it to a future Labour government.

The rest is clearly just personal opinion. As I've already stated, I'm wholly in approval of the GRR Bill, but even more important for me is that in order to have any credibility as a pro-independence FM, whoever wins this leadership election absolutely must challenge the s35. Regan and Forbes have no intention of doing that, which is why, especially in Forbes case, I can not take her seriously as a potential FM.

[Dunning1874]

14 hours ago, Trogdor said:

This.

I really don't understand why Humza would lie about something like this where he gains so little advantage. He has been the same way as minister tbh, a lack of political judgement.

If I had a vote I would spoil my ballot.

While Yousaf has certainly shown a lack of political judgement across his ministerial roles, the most credible explanation on this which makes his actions easy to understand is that he's the one telling the truth.

If a politician was seeking to avoid voting on an issue because they don't want to admit they oppose their party's stance, they want a pretext for abstaining rather than just saying they intend to do so or simply just want to hide an opinion they think will be electorally unpopular, that politician would not also vote in favour of the same bill at different stages and speak in favour of it literally every single time they're asked about it during the passage of the bill and in the nine years following it becoming law.

It is a completely incoherent attack, and incidentally there is a precisely 0% chance it would still be getting dragged up to target a white Christian candidate about two weeks after that candidate stated their unequivocal support for existing rights.

[Jacksgranda]

When's the next hustings And is it Lived Streamed, too?

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

Jesus suffering f**k. Why on earth are you repeatedly asking me to provide examples of a thing that I have specifically said I am not concerned about?

Perhaps it would help you if I quoted my original post that you edited down in the first place -

For the umpteenth time, I have no concerns about Forbes rolling back rights either now or in the future. I do however, have concerns that she would be totally uninterested in enacting legislation that further enhances or offers new rights to minority groups. 

Is that clear?

Not at all, because there's no concrete example of a scenario rights where Holyrood would actually be enhancing or offering new rights to minority groups. So your concern about a purely hypothetical rights issue seems (IMO) as relevant as having a concern about how the FM would deal with an invasion from outer space. 

At least we're not currently peddling the rollback bullshit - although others on the thread are insinuating exactly that without foundation. 

[Crùbag]

On 28/02/2023 at 19:17, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

I'd need to know more details about the vanity thing, but I doubt it was simple as you put it.  The Free Church wouldn't castigate someone merely for doing what you said.

The Lord Mackay thing wasn't the Free Church.  It was the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

It happened.

Will give you the Mackay thing but there is the problem - the sheer number of split churches. And, in the islands, maybe not so much in Dingwall where Forbes is from, you have each church clinging to the extremes. Even the 'established' Church of Scotland in the islands is not the cuddly auld teddy we may think it is in cosmopolitan Edinburgh. That said, the FC, even in Edinburgh still dishes out the hellfire to sinners.

As to Forbes though and her 'honesty' - why does she cherry pick her church's tenets? Specifically, she chooses to ignore her church's teachings on Catholics - the Anti-Christ - but not on gay marriage? And, would she be a Sabbatrian FM?

My issue isn't with her beliefs as much as they're not mine, it's about human rights and democracy. She can't put her beliefs into action as a lawmaker and claim to uphold human rights. I'd vote to allow the Wee Frees to have the freedom to worship, why can't she vote to allow gay people to marry?

This from Mhairi Black: