Next permanent Scotland manager

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Are folk actually buying that Humza absolutely had to have that meeting which conveniently avoided the vote on Gay marriage equality? Especially given the statement was released through his friend who has also acted as his lawyer? People actually believe that? 

Given that he'd already voted for the bill twice and knew it was going to pass with a huge majority, does anyone actually care, 8 years on?

[Salt n Vinegar]

21 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

I’ve no idea what other folk will do, it’s their own choice.  However. If Kate Forbes becomes leader I will terminate my membership and stop voting for the SNP.

I can't quite get my head round that approach. 

In the early '70s Rangers allowed a player called Jim Denny onto the pitch. I thought he was absolutely awful and I groaned every time I saw he was playing. Didn't stop me going to games, or wanting the team to win. That was the big picture. That wouldn't have changed even if Rangers went nuts and made him captain. I might not have liked it, but the big picture wouldn't have changed a bit. 

Obviously it's up to everyone to vote however they want, but IMO someone who wants Scotland to be independent deciding not to vote for the main independence party because they don't like the leader is an act of national political self harm.  Any reduction in support/ MSPs/ MPs/ councillors that happens after the new leadership is appointed won't be presented by the unionists and their pals in most of the press as anything other than a fall in support for independence.

I'm no fan of religion, but I accept that others are. Having thought about this issue for a while now, IF a candidate gives assurances that they will govern for the whole country and not in the interests of any "faith" then I'm prepared to take them at their word. I will however be down on them like a ton of bricks if I am given evidence to the contrary. 

[Trogdor]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Given that he'd already voted for the bill twice and knew it was going to pass with a huge majority, does anyone actually care, 8 years on?

It's a matter of integrity and political judgement. He's been remarkably stupid in his version of events. Then he doubles down and gets his lawyer to come out and actually make it worse.

Rather than owning his actions (8 years ago) he's trying to retain the moral high ground despite having been caught in a lie. He is either being poorly advised or he's too stubborn to admit he erred.

I would accept something along the lines that he was relatively inexperienced and was under immense pressure from the Mosque so it was easier for him to duck the vote. Now he's a more seasoned political operator he wouldn't allow that pressure to affect his decision making.

The reason he won't say that is because he's already said his faith doesn't affect his legislating and believes it is an advantage he has over Forbes. The reality is the debate has moved on but he's letting this fester. 

[Granny Danger]

I wonder if folk would be so sanguine about a potential party leader if they were a self-confessed racist rather than a self-confessed homophobe.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

25 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Given that he'd already voted for the bill twice and knew it was going to pass with a huge majority, does anyone actually care, 8 years on?

So integrity and principle dont matter to you? 

[welshbairn]

12 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

So integrity and principle dont matter to you? 

Sure they do, the meeting he had was part of a campaign to save someone who was on death row for blasphemy. Humza has always spoken in favour of equal rights and gay marriage and voted for it twice. There was zero chance that missing the final vote would have risked it not passing. If he'd unnecessarily caused a rift with his Mosque it wouldn't have helped his standing with the Pakistan authorities while he was trying to persuade them to cancel an execution for breaking Islamic rules. 

Edited March 5, 2023 by welshbairn

[Salt n Vinegar]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I wonder if folk would be so sanguine about a potential party leader if they were a self-confessed racist rather than a self-confessed homophobe.

I doubt if any politician of any party is yet ready to grasp the nettles of faith, belief and policy.

Somebody drops a book and has to flee their home because of threats about blasphemy. Girls are allegedly being poisoned to keep them at home or in hospital away from education, or just banned from learning altogether. In the USA, it seems pretty clear that the Supreme Court is incapable of protecting the separation of Church and State. We have Bishops in the House of Lords, representatives of the churches on local authority Education Committees and a Head of State who is also head of a church and who apparently thinks a god thinks he's the very lad for the job. You'll get no argument from me about these issues when folk play the 'you can't criticise religion' card.

While I personally struggle to see any added value in political leaders being religious, I'm not at the stage of barring religious folk from positions of authority - as long as they are elected.  

For me, if Forbes is elected, the test will be not what she said about a vote that happened years before she had any influence in Parliament, it will be how she votes or comments on other "equality" issues. I think the next biggie will be on abortion buffer zones - not so much on the more obvious intimidation which I think most folk recognise - but the more sneaky and irrational 'prayer vigils' or other 'faith-based' campaigns or protests. Will she comment on and criticise, say, 30 folk lead by a "preacher" standing outside a clinic quietly mumbling or lustily singing psalms and hymns while staring at people they think are going inside? I don't know.  Mrs Salt n Vinegar has already commented that Forbes is being interviewed on the radio - on a Sunday! FWIW, I don't think she handled the religion/ policy issue at all well. 

Yousaf's commitment to equality APPEARS to be pretty solid, so at the moment I'd probably favour him as party leader and FM. I think Regan isn't really in the race but time will tell. Would any of the 3 candidates be my first choice? Possibly not, but voters can only play the hand they are dealt. There's certainly nothing about the 3 that would stop me voting for independence or voting instead for Labour, the Tories or the risible LibDems. 

It's a bit in the future, but when Scotland becomes independent it must, IMO, have a written, secular constitution. 

Right, off for a few days to celebrate Mrs Salt and Vinegar's significant birthday. 

Have a good day all... except Celtic fans... I hope you get gubbed by St Mirren. (Not really expecting that, TBH!) 

[welshbairn]

Ash is getting a bit slicker with her presentation but still can't get past the hurdle of explaining how a 50+% pro indy parties vote in an election would mean independence won.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

49 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Sure they do, the meeting he had was part of a campaign to save someone who was on death row for blasphemy. Humza has always spoken in favour of equal rights and gay marriage and voted for it twice. There was zero chance that missing the final vote would have risked it not passing. If he'd unnecessarily caused a rift with his Mosque it wouldn't have helped his standing with the Pakistan authorities while he was trying to persuade them to cancel an execution for breaking Islamic rules. 

Then why not take ownership of that instead of ducking and diving on the issue?

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Then why not take ownership of that instead of ducking and diving on the issue?

Because it would likely lead to revealing confidential discussions between himself and his Mosque/Muslim community which would help no one, especially as we're talking about 8 year old private conversations, likely with people who are no longer in position or now think differently, and leading private lives. I don't think full transparency is always a virtue, especially when you're trying to bring people with different attitudes together to move on.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Just now, welshbairn said:

Because it would likely lead to revealing confidential discussions between himself and his Mosque/Muslim community which would help no one, especially as we're talking about 8 year old private conversations, likely with people who are no longer in position or now think differently, and leading private lives. I don't think full transparency is always a virtue, especially when you're trying to bring people with different attitudes together to move on.

That's fine if it is something that is unlikely to see the light of day.

That was never going to be the case here. 

It's political naivety to think he wouldn't be found out.  Like Forbes he could have headed the horses off at the pass but choose not to.

He could easily have taken ownership without actually revealing any conversations or who pressurised him. 

 

[sophia]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

I wonder if folk would be so sanguine about a potential party leader if they were a self-confessed racist rather than a self-confessed homophobe.

That's a Frank Doberman sketch you've got going on in your head there

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

That's fine if it is something that is unlikely to see the light of day.

That was never going to be the case here. 

It's political naivety to think he wouldn't be found out.  Like Forbes he could have headed the horses off at the pass but choose not to.

He could easily have taken ownership without actually revealing any conversations or who pressurised him. 

 

I really don't get the fuss, or where he's lied. The meeting was real and important, even if the timing might have been convenient.

[ScotiaNostra]

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Given that he'd already voted for the bill twice and knew it was going to pass with a huge majority, does anyone actually care, 8 years on?

Yousaf obviously cares enough, if he has lied about it now?

Edited March 5, 2023 by ScotiaNostra

[Trogdor]

13 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I really don't get the fuss, or where he's lied. The meeting was real and important, even if the timing might have been convenient.

You have to be trolling.

[Caledonian1]

1 hour ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I can't quite get my head round that approach. 

In the early '70s Rangers allowed a player called Jim Denny onto the pitch. I thought he was absolutely awful and I groaned every time I saw he was playing. Didn't stop me going to games, or wanting the team to win. That was the big picture. That wouldn't have changed even if Rangers went nuts and made him captain. I might not have liked it, but the big picture wouldn't have changed a bit. 

Obviously it's up to everyone to vote however they want, but IMO someone who wants Scotland to be independent deciding not to vote for the main independence party because they don't like the leader is an act of national political self harm.  Any reduction in support/ MSPs/ MPs/ councillors that happens after the new leadership is appointed won't be presented by the unionists and their pals in most of the press as anything other than a fall in support for independence.

I'm no fan of religion, but I accept that others are. Having thought about this issue for a while now, IF a candidate gives assurances that they will govern for the whole country and not in the interests of any "faith" then I'm prepared to take them at their word. I will however be down on them like a ton of bricks if I am given evidence to the contrary. 

Completely agree with the above. 

If you dig deep enough I am sure every politician that ever lived had at least one different belief or value that you did not 100% agree with but it should not be sufficient to take your eye off the ultimate goal.....tearing up membership cards and assisting one of the unionist parties (whether through a borrowed vote or abstention) is rally quite a depressing attitude to take.

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

In which alternate reality is this?

 

Twitter and the total losers who centre their politics around it. 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

On 04/03/2023 at 10:48, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

If God's choice wins then lots of voters will switch to the Greens as they will not go back to voting for the Yoon's after taking the piss out them for years.

I reckon a lot of them would go back to Labour, especially when it looks like they are going to oust the Tories.

[orfc]

4 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Sure they do, the meeting he had was part of a campaign to save someone who was on death row for blasphemy. Humza has always spoken in favour of equal rights and gay marriage and voted for it twice. There was zero chance that missing the final vote would have risked it not passing. If he'd unnecessarily caused a rift with his Mosque it wouldn't have helped his standing with the Pakistan authorities while he was trying to persuade them to cancel an execution for breaking Islamic rules. 

It's been pointed out the role of the Pakistani consulate in Scotland is to look after the well-being of Pakistanis in Scotland, not Scots in Pakistan though, he'd have needed a meeting in the British high commission in Islamabad for that

https://www.facebook.com/PakinGlasgow/?locale=en_GB
"The Consulate of Pakistan in Glasgow is a Consular Mission of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Kingdom, and responsible for providing services to Pakistanis/ Expatriates and Foreigners residing in Scotland and Northern Ireland."

[welshbairn]

Just now, orfc said:

It's been pointed out the role of the Pakistani consulate in Scotland is to look after the well-being of Pakistanis in Scotland, not Scots in Pakistan though, he'd have needed a meeting in the British high commission in Islamabad for that

https://www.facebook.com/PakinGlasgow/?locale=en_GB
"The Consulate of Pakistan in Glasgow is a Consular Mission of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Kingdom, and responsible for providing services to Pakistanis/ Expatriates and Foreigners residing in Scotland and Northern Ireland."

He's appointed by the Pakistan Government, and presumably has contacts within it.