Next permanent Scotland manager

[Antlion]

36 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

Neither. I’m on record on here as saying I’m not convinced by the case for Independence. But that doesn’t automatically make me a committed Unionist. 

Obviously not - no one who supports “let’s take back control” Brexit Britain can reasonably call themselves a “unionist”.

[Frank Quitely]

1 hour ago, renton said:

No, in this case I think it's because she gave them red meat to chew on. There isn't much of a conspiracy needed when you happily walk in front of every available mic and say you don't think Gay folk should be equal in the eyes of the law, won't protect Trans rights, are pro-life and think that folk with kids born out of wedlock are sinners, and do so when trying to run as leader for a party who's broader vote tends to be younger and more Liberal.

 

She gave them red meat or she gave them it straight, take your pick.  In politics there is such a thing as collective responsibility and I'm pretty sure Kate Forbes is aware that her winning the leadership wouldn't be a mandate for her to legislate hellfire and damnation across the Scottish nation.  

There's a grown-up debate needed here about where Scotland should be headed and that includes a whole raft of boring but very important issues outside of the current feeding frenzy.  If Kate Forbes or anyone else with strong religious convictions were to deliver improvements in education, drug deaths, homelessness and ambulance waiting times then even the nation's youth might be impressed.

I have no absolutely truck with religion but I've equally no time for those who insist on absolute purity of their own beliefs in anyone wishing to run for high public office.  Tolerance works both ways.

 

[Savage Henry]

1 hour ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

She hasn't said anyone shouldn't be able to marry though.

Even if she had, it wouldn't mean she thinks they're inferior.

By definition, if you deny some people the sanctity of marriage, and to “disagree with” is in effect to deny, you regard those people in lesser standing. 

[vikingTON]

39 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

Neither. I’m on record on here as saying I’m not convinced by the case for Independence. But that doesn’t automatically make me a committed Unionist. 

The bit that’s grinding my gears is Scotland finally seems to have an MSP who, rather than shape shifting and contorting to the fashion of the day,  has the courage of her conviction to stand up and say so. However unpopular that may be.

I mean she didn't really have the courage of her conviction, or else she would have resigned from the front bench under Sturgeon instead of turning maternity leave into a Get Out of Jail Free card. 

Her interviews have clearly torched the campaign but not just the expectation but the actual desire from some folk for politicians to brazenly lie to them is indeed utterly bizarre. Constant PR exercises have led politicians and the practice of representing the people into a job viewed with the greatest possible contempt in society. That is not a healthy thing. 

[Savage Henry]

31 minutes ago, Binos said:

You're blinkered

Sturgeons legacy is that she has produced a party in her own image which is intolerant of swathes of society and therefore unworkable 

But fairer apparently 

I’m not currently an SNP member, but the intolerance is coming from the anti-Sturgeon lunatic wing of the SNP, I would suggest. 

[alta-pete]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

I mean she didn't really have the courage of her conviction, or else she would have resigned from the front bench under Sturgeon instead of turning maternity leave into a Get Out of Jail Free card. 

Her interviews have clearly torched the campaign but not just the expectation but the actual desire from some folk for politicians to brazenly lie to them is indeed utterly bizarre. Constant PR exercises have led politicians and the practice of representing the people into a job viewed with the greatest possible contempt in society. That is not a healthy thing. 

I think you’re right. She did use the Get Out of Jail Free card (as did Humza earlier). 

But in the totalitarianist environment of the Murrell’s SNP that actually was a very pragmatic (and lucky) outcome. Keep the heid down, prove  competence, work gently away in a lower role. No one dissents, it’s a prerequisite of the sign-up.

Im fairly sure she had ideas for the leadership, equally fairly sure she wasn’t expecting the opportunity to arrive right now. 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

3 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

By definition, if you deny some people the sanctity of marriage, and to “disagree with” is in effect to deny, you regard those people in lesser standing. 

No you don't, and the definition states nothing of the sort.

Forbes is a committed Christian who adheres to the bible.  The bible says marriage is between one man and one woman, so Forbes, being a Christian, follows that.

At no point has she denied people marriage or disagreed with their marriages.  She doesn't make the rules.

[Mark Connolly]

1 minute ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Forbes is a committed Christian who adheres to the bible

Does she adhere to everything in the Bible? Or just selected parts?

[alta-pete]

[carpetmonster]

3 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

No you don't, and the definition states nothing of the sort.

Forbes is a committed Christian who adheres to the bible.  The bible says marriage is between one man and one woman, so Forbes, being a Christian, follows that.

At no point has she denied people marriage or disagreed with their marriages.  She doesn't make the rules.

And now it’s looking very unlikely she’ll get to make the rules, so that’s fine. 

[alta-pete]

25 minutes ago, Frank Quitely said:

She gave them red meat or she gave them it straight, take your pick.  In politics there is such a thing as collective responsibility and I'm pretty sure Kate Forbes is aware that her winning the leadership wouldn't be a mandate for her to legislate hellfire and damnation across the Scottish nation.  

There's a grown-up debate needed here about where Scotland should be headed and that includes a whole raft of boring but very important issues outside of the current feeding frenzy.  If Kate Forbes or anyone else with strong religious convictions were to deliver improvements in education, drug deaths, homelessness and ambulance waiting times then even the nation's youth might be impressed.

I have no absolutely truck with religion but I've equally no time for those who insist on absolute purity of their own beliefs in anyone wishing to run for high public office.  Tolerance works both ways.

 

Absofuckinglootley nailed it. A single Charles, I’m afraid, is all I can offer in return. 

[Binos]

26 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

By definition, if you deny some people the sanctity of marriage, and to “disagree with” is in effect to deny, you regard those people in lesser standing. 

As you regard people who hold religious beliefs of that persuasion 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

17 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

Does she adhere to everything in the Bible? Or just selected parts?

Better not be wearing two different kinds of cloth. 

[Cheese]

19 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

Does she adhere to everything in the Bible? Or just selected parts?

Bit of shellfish attitude to have.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

44 minutes ago, Frank Quitely said:

She gave them red meat or she gave them it straight, take your pick.  In politics there is such a thing as collective responsibility and I'm pretty sure Kate Forbes is aware that her winning the leadership wouldn't be a mandate for her to legislate hellfire and damnation across the Scottish nation.  

There's a grown-up debate needed here about where Scotland should be headed and that includes a whole raft of boring but very important issues outside of the current feeding frenzy.  If Kate Forbes or anyone else with strong religious convictions were to deliver improvements in education, drug deaths, homelessness and ambulance waiting times then even the nation's youth might be impressed.

I have no absolutely truck with religion but I've equally no time for those who insist on absolute purity of their own beliefs in anyone wishing to run for high public office.  Tolerance works both ways.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

59 minutes ago, Frank Quitely said:

She gave them red meat or she gave them it straight, take your pick.  In politics there is such a thing as collective responsibility and I'm pretty sure Kate Forbes is aware that her winning the leadership wouldn't be a mandate for her to legislate hellfire and damnation across the Scottish nation.  

There's a grown-up debate needed here about where Scotland should be headed and that includes a whole raft of boring but very important issues outside of the current feeding frenzy.  If Kate Forbes or anyone else with strong religious convictions were to deliver improvements in education, drug deaths, homelessness and ambulance waiting times then even the nation's youth might be impressed.

I have no absolutely truck with religion but I've equally no time for those who insist on absolute purity of their own beliefs in anyone wishing to run for high public office.  Tolerance works both ways.

 

Why shouldn’t she be questioned on her attitudes and beliefs on social issues? She’s entitled to her own views and beliefs, but if she’s standing to be leader of a country it’s legitimate for those views to be scrutinised surely?

Like it or not her response to the media frenzy was at best naive or at worst showed she is out of her depth.  She could easily have swatted the questions away without being dishonest - head the conversation down the collective responsibility route but chose instead to personalise it further.

Edited February 22, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[alta-pete]

Just don’t mention the super injunction that anyone might have…

[Binos]

7 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Why shouldn’t she be questioned on her attitudes and beliefs on social issues? She’s entitled to her own views and beliefs, but if she’s standing to be leader of a country it’s legitimate for those views to be scrutinised surely?

Like it or not her response to the media frenzy was at best naive or at worst showed she is out of her depth.  She could easily have swatted the questions away without being dishonest - head the conversation down the collective responsibility route but chose instead to personalise it further.

Sadly she was not standing to be leader of a country

Edited February 22, 2023 by Binos

[vikingTON]

2 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Why shouldn’t she be questioned on her attitudes and beliefs on social issues? She’s entitled to her own views and beliefs, but if she’s standing to be leader of a country it’s legitimate for those views to be scrutinised surely?

Where have those actually been scrutinised? I disagree with Forbes' views for the most part, but the idea that there has been a genuine exercise in that over the past few days is laughable. Her analogy with Merkel lasted for about 0.1 seconds before the Twitter mob got the BIGOT klaxon out and that was pretty much that. 

An online flash mob is not the same as serious scrutiny of a politician's views. 

[renton]

52 minutes ago, Frank Quitely said:

She gave them red meat or she gave them it straight, take your pick.  In politics there is such a thing as collective responsibility and I'm pretty sure Kate Forbes is aware that her winning the leadership wouldn't be a mandate for her to legislate hellfire and damnation across the Scottish nation.  

There's a grown-up debate needed here about where Scotland should be headed and that includes a whole raft of boring but very important issues outside of the current feeding frenzy.  If Kate Forbes or anyone else with strong religious convictions were to deliver improvements in education, drug deaths, homelessness and ambulance waiting times then even the nation's youth might be impressed.

I have no absolutely truck with religion but I've equally no time for those who insist on absolute purity of their own beliefs in anyone wishing to run for high public office.  Tolerance works both ways.

 

It's not about absolute purity of beliefs. It's about choosing someone who will protect the rights of those she serves. The crux of her argument is that while she may disregard the civil rights of gay people, may feel it is wrong for folk to have children outside of marriage, that it's OK because these are already enshrined rights and she isn't going to tamper with them.

Yet as First Minister, she may be called on to protect those rights, there may be calls to enhance those rights or those policies that may be to the advantage of those groups. Is that going to her priority? If the Tories in their likely dying days of government decided to implement cuts that would massively disadvantage single parents, would Forbes use political capital to protect that? Or if they came back after gay rights, now or ten years down the line - would Forbes see that as something she would fight for? She isn't going into bat for the GRR after all. What ever you think of it, it was passed with massive cross party support, but because she personally doesn't like the content of the bill she isn't willing to expend her efforts on protecting the wider devolution settlement.

So she clearly isn't taking the tack that her faith is a private matter, or something more malleable than the strict orthodoxy of the church that she finds comfort in. Her faith informs her, helps shape her view of the world. Well, fine - there is, I gather, a great comfort in the idea that a higher power can guide you. That's not why she's being pilloried. 

She wants to put herself up in the gallery and ask people to vote for her, by extension she is putting up her beliefs - formed in part from her faith. There is no way to shield herself that way. Folk can and will make up their minds, not that they don't like religious people but that they believe that her views - informed by that faith - make her an unreasonable candidate to protect the rights and policies those people want to see kept safe.