Next permanent Scotland manager

[Boo Khaki]

4 minutes ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

Even backwards dumps like the USA and England have long since accepted equal marriage, so it absolutely is bigotry to be against it.

Aye, England, before us IIRC, and only managed to pull it off because they changed the law to expressly forbid their single biggest church from carrying out same-sex marriages. The head of that church just came out again at Christmas, the supposed time where christian charity should be at it's most accepting, and reiterated that the CofE still does not regard homosexual people as being worthy of any sort of basic respect.

England is the last example I'd pick  if I'm choosing a place that showed some sort of progressive trendsetting if I'm honest. The way that came about down there was an absolute disgrace of pandering to bigotry, not removing it.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Boo Khaki

[Dunning1874]

That's the first retraction of an endorsement for Forbes in, with Richard Lochhead saying he can no longer support her due to the same sex marriage comments.

What day do we reckon she'll officially withdraw? Would be a surprise if she lasted until Friday at this point.

[Salt n Vinegar]

2 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Here was me thinking at lunch time "Fair enough, give Forbes a chance and see if she truly can set aside her dark-ages views and keep them out of politics", and she promptly goes and confirms that she's every bit the religious zealot I suspected, if not more so.

No fucking way can she be taken seriously as a leadership candidate for a progressive party. The 'whitaboot muslim Humza?' stuff is just laughable because his voting record is there as testament to the fact he absolutely can, and does, keep the dogma of his religion out of his politics, something that Forbes herself has just confirmed she would be completely incapable of doing.

'Ah but it's already law, and it's no getting rolled back!'. Well no, but what about the next time there's a significant political matter that involves one of the peccadilloes of being a member of a cult with dark-ages views? Say, buffer zones around abortion clinics for example?

Aye. It's all very well saying that she wouldn't roll back legislation already in force, but what about the future? The buffer zones is perhaps the next biggie, but it's hardly going to be the last 'socially controversial' issue that's going to come up.  If an item is in the manifesto it would be ludicrous if the First Minister and/or Party leader refused to publicly support it in the Scottish Parliament or in TV debates, and presumably if Forbes had not been on maternity leave a couple of months ago, she'd have had to resign from the front bench for not supporting the Government. 

Sorry Kate, I had great hopes for you, but (IMO) we don't need a Party Leader or First Minister who wants to take social policy in Scotland back decades - or centuries. Supporters of independence can only hope that the cause is not set back too badly by this leadership s#itshow. As long as the leadership continues to target independence, of course I'll continue to vote SNP, but I'm glad I don't live in her constituency and face a decision on voting for her as an individual. I doubt if I'm alone in that view. 

 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Due to their disgusting nature and actions, I don't believe Rangers fans should enjoy the same rights as the rest of society.

Unlucky bluenoses, you can't get mad and you can't judge me on my beliefs. In fact, you should praise me for my openness and honesty.

[alta-pete]

4 minutes ago, Bodie said:

Due to their disgusting nature and actions, I don't believe Rangers fans should enjoy the same rights as the rest of society.

Unlucky bluenoses, you can't get mad and you can't judge me on my beliefs. In fact, you should praise me for my openness and honesty.

I disagree but I respect your opinion. How about you raise sufficient support to take it to Parliament and let them vote on it? Isn’t that the grown up way of dealing with how we run our society?

[Benjamin_Nevis]

23 hours ago, Benjamin_Nevis said:

Should Kate Forbes declare her interest, she'd most certainly be my preferred choice, as:

• Angus Robertson is basically a non-catastrophically bald Swinney - a nice enough bloke but utterly beige as a leader
• Ash Regan is heavily supported by Cherry and on that basis alone is probably a bit of a c**t. And a transphobe.
• Humza is just really average at everything. I cannot think of a single thing he could point to and say he'd be proud of. 

Forbes, whilst young, is politically astute enough to know how to keep her religious beliefs and job as a politician apart and is a far better and bolder communicator than the others.

 

That went well 

Christ in a canoe. 

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

7 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Aye, England, before us IIRC, and only managed to pull it off because they changed the law to expressly forbid their single biggest church from carrying out same-sex marriages. The head of that church just came out again at Christmas, the supposed time where christian charity should be at it's most accepting, and reiterated that the CofE still does not regard homosexual people as being worthy of any sort of basic respect.

England is the last example I'd pick  if I'm choosing a place that showed some sort of progressive trendsetting if I'm honest. The way that came about down there was an absolute disgrace of pandering to bigotry, not removing it.

You're absolutely right regarding the CofE's depressing stance. When I cited England, I was more thinking of the attitude of the government and general population.

I know I shouldn't have any trust in a government which has senior MPs that openly support bringing back hanging, but I'd like to think that even Sunak's mob wouldn't try to repeal equal marriage.

I realise that this post will be quoted back to me in a few years once PM Lee Anderson has erected public gallows in every town centre and has declared every gay person to be a paedo.

[Theyellowbox]

It's quite possible that some of the senior SNP folk are clever enough to foresee the absolute carnage that would happen post Sturgeon and wait for the next turn. Kind of in the same way folk feared following big hitters like Ferguson, Stein, Shankly etc. Better to let someone come in and take the flack then come in as the unifying saviors. Gilruth, Robertson et al maybe sensible to stay out.

I though Forbes would have done well, regardless of religious position, if she would have been savvy enough to answer the questions on same sex marriage in a way that didn't make her look out of touch.

Looks like it is Humzas to lose. He'd do well to look for a deputy that is maybe more to the right of the party as a bit of a unifier.

You could see a two party SNP developing. A right/centre split and a left/centre split. That would be hell for Labour and Tories having 2 pro independence parties, but very different social views. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

14 minutes ago, Bodie said:

Due to their disgusting nature and actions, I don't believe Rangers fans should enjoy the same rights as the rest of society.

Unlucky bluenoses, you can't get mad and you can't judge me on my beliefs. In fact, you should praise me for my openness and honesty.

Oh give us a break with your character assassination of us, that poor downtrodden depressed section of society. With the team we've got, haven't we suffered enough?

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

Clown Job appears to have found himself a gig at The Herald.

 

 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

There is absolutely no chance the new leader will pick up the GRR mantel after seeing it bring down Sturgeon. It’s dead.

Kate Forbes was just too open about it.

[Boo Khaki]

4 minutes ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

You're absolutely right regarding the CofE's depressing stance. When I cited England, I was more thinking of the attitude of the government and general population.

I know I shouldn't have any trust in a government which has senior MPs that openly support bringing back hanging, but I'd like to think that even Sunak's mob wouldn't try to repeal equal marriage.

I realise that this post will be quoted back to me in a few years once PM Lee Anderson has erected public gallows in every town centre and has declared every gay person to be a paedo.

This iteration of the Tory party will do whatever the f**k it thinks will garner enough support to get them re-elected and continue their asset-strip of the UK. They don't give a shit about actually governing the UK, hence why they'll pander to any old bullshit they believe might give them some electoral traction, even if it means pandering to the sort of morons who were merrily voting BNP/UKIP 10-15 years ago.

I first said about two years ago on P&B that Johnson's government would inevitably make such a complete James Hunt of governing that they would attempt to twist the next GE into a fabricated culture war over gender identity, and I said at the same time that it was inevitable that a government including worstcunts like Patel and pandering to right-wing little Englanders would somehow attempt to re-start a 'debate' on the reintroduction Capital punishment. Nobody really challenged the assertion about gender identity because it was already happening but to a lesser extent than it is currently. I got laughed at and told Capital Punishment was 'settled' and no government would attempt to stoke that up again. Well, here we are, with Lee Anderson made deputy Chairman of the governing party, an event that is as ridiculous as he is himself, and what's the first notable thing he does within days of being appointed? Yup, 'We need to reintroduce the death penalty'. That's a measure of how utterly moraly bankrupt this fucking shower are. Put a useful idiot in a position of relative prominence, and set about using him as a stalking-horse to get the public 'debate' going. 

At this point I really wouldn't be surprised if it's a Tory 2024 manifesto commitment. Not to re-introduce it, but a wee tempter along the lines of 'we WILL ensure there is a Parliamentary debate'. That's exactly how the Brexit shite got off the ground.

[alta-pete]

53 minutes ago, Iain said:

Humza could do with securing an experienced hand as his proposed deputy. At the moment he has an advantage and he needs to shore up his deficiencies and present as capable.

 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

24 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

I disagree but I respect your opinion. How about you raise sufficient support to take it to Parliament and let them vote on it? Isn’t that the grown up way of dealing with how we run our society?

A level headed response for sure, not convinced many of your fellow bears would agree when my proposed bill eventually makes its way through parliament, but fair play for respecting me even though I think you're an abomination in front of the eyes of God 

The point I'm labouring to make here is that people, especially elected officials are rightly (imo) or wrongly absolutely judged on their beliefs particularly when the beliefs are that certain groups are inferior/of less value/should be denied rights or agency. The idea that Forbes shouldn't be judged this way is bizarre and setting a ludicrous standard that will never be maintained. If Humza announced tomorrow that he's always been a hard-core Stalinist but promises to continue to respect democracy, do you think the various commentators and columnists currently saying you shouldn't judge Forbes on her beliefs and praise her honesty would be giving him the same treatment ?

[Boo Khaki]

Quite simply, both Forbes, and arsehole Dave down the pub, believe that sexual orientation is a perfectly valid grounds for subjecting someone to negative, exclusionary discrimination, and they would both, in an entirely free vote, enshrine that in law. It's fine for Forbes to hide behind 'oh but it's law and I won't roll it back', but if the vote was hers and hers alone she would have legally forbade same-sex marriage, as no doubt Dave would have also.

The fact one is religious, and one is just a poorly educated, low IQ moron is neither here nor there. They both believe in the same thing, they are both equally as unpalatable, and they are both completely out of touch with modern society. 

Arsehole Dave wouldn't have prominent politicians running to his defence and claiming people who vocally disagree with him are bullying him because of sinister motivations, a la Regan re Forbes, so why the f**k they think Forbes should receive a free pass 'because religion' is both incomprehensible and indefensible.

You don't cease to be a bigot just because your bigoted views are rooted in your religious faith. 

Dave doesn't give reasons or excuses for his homophobic hate, because nobody would be particularly interested anyway, but even if he did put some argument forward nobody would just go 'ah, well you have your reasons, so that makes it ok', which is exactly what Forbes' defenders are attempting to do by highlighting the fact she's an adherent of a specific faith. 

I haven't seen one single example of someone criticising her today where they have criticised her faith or religion rather than her actual view on same-sex marriage and reproductive rights, so to contend people are attacking her because of her faith or religion is palpably nonsensical. She is being attacked because of her views, the exact same way that it's Arsehole Dave's views, and not the basis for them, that people find repellent. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Boo Khaki

[ScotiaNostra]

6 hours ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

There is absolutely no chance the new leader will pick up the GRR mantel after seeing it bring down Sturgeon. It’s dead.

Kate Forbes was just too open about it.

I thought I read a headline that Yousaf said he was but maybe I misread it

Edited February 21, 2023 by ScotiaNostra

[ScotiaNostra]

Its the shitshow I feared and if Yousaf does end up winning as looks likely, its the steady decline I fear next. Unless someone steps in late to the race. This idea some are waiting for a chance in a few years ignores the damage that can be done in those few years

Edited February 21, 2023 by ScotiaNostra

[effeffsee_the2nd]

1 hour ago, ScotiaNostra said:

Its the shitshow I feared and if Yousaf does end up winning as looks likely, its the steady decline I fear next. Unless someone steps in late to the race. This idea some are waiting for a chance in a few years ignores the damage that can be done in those few years

maybe it's deliberate? there are thousands in the SNP membership who keep demanding that we hold another indy ref as soon as possible, one that we would almost certainly lose if it we're to go ahead.  having a shite leader to increase apathy and get all those blowhard members to chuck their membership gives the wider independence movement time to build for having a proper go at winning the next one, which would have to be some time after 2030.  You need polls to consistently show 60% + in favour of support to be even thinking about having another vote.  we don't have anywhere near that

[ScotiaNostra]

8 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

maybe it's deliberate? there are thousands in the SNP membership who keep demanding that we hold another indy ref as soon as possible, one that we would almost certainly lose if it we're to go ahead.  having a shite leader to increase apathy and get all those blowhard members to chuck their membership gives the wider independence movement time to build for having a proper go at winning the next one, which would have to be some time after 2030.  You need polls to consistently show 60% + in favour of support to be even thinking about having another vote.  we don't have anywhere near that

to be deliberate would mean someone/some group has a masterplan, I think the one thing thats clear, is that theres no masterplan currently

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

6 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

maybe it's deliberate? there are thousands in the SNP membership who keep demanding that we hold another indy ref as soon as possible, one that we would almost certainly lose if it we're to go ahead.  having a shite leader to increase apathy and get all those blowhard members to chuck their membership gives the wider independence movement time to build for having a proper go at winning the next one, which would have to be some time after 2030.  You need polls to consistently show 60% + in favour of support to be even thinking about having another vote.  we don't have anywhere near that

The old folks are impatient and don't want to wait 10 years, they fear missing out. It's not a long wait though and gives time to plan ahead.