Next permanent Scotland manager

[welshbairn]

21 minutes ago, ScotiaNostra said:

Thats true, I would still be interested to know in this case though. As its become the topic so focused on that if they do actually both believe the same thing then it could be argued it should be known and let people decide. Then maybe we can finally move on to what is considered other important issues we want to hear their opinions on.

 

The important thing is that Humza has always acted as if he believes in equal rights for gay people, all Forbes had to say was that she wasn't going to answer hypotheticals about a vote that occurred before she entered politics and she is fully supportive of the marriage law as it now stands. Humza only missed the final vote, he voted for it on every step leading up to it.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by welshbairn

[ICTChris]

Is someone going to join before the deadlin to sort all this out or is this it?  

[Jacksgranda]

31 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Malt whisky, reading, some films, Sci-fi, singing (no, NOT that weekly "orange" garbage ), learning Gaelic. How about you?

(for the avoidance of any doubt, I'm sure you're a very good person but I'm not asking you out on a date! ) 

Is that not a bit homophobic?

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Is someone going to join before the deadline to sort all this out or is this it?  

It would have to be a right drama queen with 45 minutes to go.

(Is that me cancelled?)

[Wee-Bey]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The important thing is that Humza has always acted as if he believes in equal rights for gay people,

That's going to be pretty hard to square if the allegations of him purposely skipping the vote are true.

[welshbairn]

Just now, Bodie said:

That's going to be pretty hard to square if the allegations of him purposely skipping the vote are true.

The bill got passed by 103 to 18 with 3 no shows. Yousaf voted in favour right up until the last vote, and he knew it would make no difference to the outcome.

[ICTChris]

He believes in gay marriage but didn't want to have his mates say nasty things to him so he made up a meeting to skip the vote.

Sounds like leadership material to me!

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Yousaf was meeting with the Pakistani consulate over a death penalty case at the time of the vote was he not? Had he rubbered that and voted for the bill in Holyrood instead the headlines from the Daily Heil would have been along the lines of:

MUSLIM MSP CONDEMNS SCOT TO DEATH IN PAKISTAN TO VOTE FOR GAYS!!!!

[Dunning1874]

On 23/02/2023 at 09:06, Juanhourjoe said:

I'd say the Labour Party is a bit more diverse in its wiews. Are you saying the SNP needs to do a Labour style purge too? 

The SNP should absolutely not be indulging in a Labour style purge, I'm making that comparison to highlight the difference.

Labour's wholesale baseless suspensions of CLPs who pick candidates the leadership don't like in order to centrally impose candidates is a democratic outrage, and to say some of their attempts at deselection of sitting MPs have been problematic is putting it extremely lightly. The treatment of Apsana Begum in particular has been vile and should have been a resignation matter for Starmer, but the media clearly don't give a shit and no one has batted an eyelid.

Meanwhile there's a received media wisdom that the SNP have allowed no difference of opinion from Sturgeon for 8 years, but there is very little evidence to support this. MPs and MSPs have been going off message on manifesto commitments, the strategy for independence or just attacking her personally for years and been left to it with little or no criticism from the leadership in return. Like I said I think adopting the strategies of Starmer's Labour to deal with that would be unacceptable, but they've basically had no internal discipline at all. MPs were free to break the code of conduct routinely without facing disciplinary action for it, everyone who hinted at or outright campaigned for Alba was left to it and were able to choose whether to defect or stay.

Sturgeon was so attached to the broad church concept that she evidently had a fear of upsetting internal critics, and therefore no matter what anyone did they knew their position was never under threat. She tried to either ignore it or appease them at every step, that only emboldened them and that's how you've ended up with such a shitshow of a leadership election here. This is not a case of internal critics suddenly being released from the iron grip of Sturgeon's oppression of free speech.

[Wee-Bey]

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The bill got passed by 103 to 18 with 3 no shows. Yousaf voted in favour right up until the last vote, and he knew it would make no difference to the outcome.

Pesky, inconvenient facts like this are of no use if the narrative is that he bumped the vote.

[Dunning1874]

22 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Is voter X allowed to have a view about himself being an issue?

I did think this might come up, but have failed to think of an appropriate person to describe as Voter X.

[Stylish Kid]

This contest is all going so terribly well, I'm really looking forward to the debates.

I feel like I can enjoy it in a way that I couldn't with the Conservative Party leadership debates as this time they're not jostling on a platform of who can deprive the most people/sink the most boats/destroy the most public services/commit the most acceptable genocide.

[welshbairn]

Politics is all about squaring divergent interests and beliefs to get things done, full transparency isn't always for the best, especially for those caught in the middle.

[Donathan]

Quite remarkable open letter from Regan in which she both rubbishes the idea of a de facto referendum, then goes on to state than any future election where Yes supporting parties receive a majority of votes and seats will trigger the start of independence negotiations (sounds a lot like a de facto referendum to me)

 

The SNP are completely snookered from the point of view that it’s very clear that legally, Scotland cannot become independent without Westminster’s consent. Regan could get 60% or 70% in the next election but whoever is the PM will simply refuse to enter negotiations. Any talk of de facto referendums, wildcat referendums or UDIs are simply red meat to the voter base, and for me the candidates should be presenting a plan on how they’re going to convince the UK Government to get on board. 

 

 

[The_Kincardine]

Q "When is a de facto referendum not a de facto referendum" 
A  "When it's a Voter Empowerment Mechanism"

[flyingscot]

1 hour ago, Iain said:

On the Kate Forbes front, Tim Farron (of all people) put it well in Adam Boulton's article on Sky News today:

"We Christians do not always help ourselves and can come across as judgemental and intolerant. I firmly believe that I have no right to legislate to make people who aren't Christians live their lives as though they were."

If Forbes had started by saying something like that this whole thing wouldn't have blown up.

I'm not sure really. Farron got it pretty tight when running the Lib Dems. Arguably this is the best time for it to be raised, rather than being elected leader and have it blowing up and causing issues with your leadership and elections as it did for Farron.

Farron seemed to struggle with it initially too, his current statements are based on years of experience! 

 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

I think the debates will be a bit of a laugh. I can see Regan have a complete cranial detachment at some point. She seems something of a total moonhowler and gives off heavy vibes as the sort of boss who throws stuff at her assistants. 

Humza will be fairly bland, as one would expect. Forbes might actually come across OK depending whether or not the audience is filled with Alba-da types or not. 

[Paco]

I got to thinking there must be some pretty senior UK politicians who actually did vote against gay marriage, rather than just saying they would’ve done ala Forbes.

In Scotland the SNP had seven votes against. Alasdair Allan was a junior minister at the time and was appointed Minister for International Development in 2016. Roseanna Cunningham was given two separate Cabinet Secretary roles afterwards, and Fergus Ewing was appointed as a Cab Sec in 2016. Labour had three nobodies who are now gone vote against and the Tories had eight - Murdo Fraser the only notable name. 

At Westminster there’s no notable names who voted against from Labour or the Lib Dems but from a quick scan these are people who went on to serve in Cabinet, some in very senior roles - Robert Buckland, Alun Cairns, Therese Coffey, Geoffrey Cox, Stephen Crabb, David Davies, David Davis, Nadine Dorries, Charlie Elphicke, Michael Fallon, Liam Fox, Simon Hart, Kwasi Kwarteng, Esther McVey, Nicky Morgan, Priti Patel, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Ben Wallace, John Whittingdale and Gavin Williamson. I’ve probably missed a few who were briefly ministers in Johnson’s banter week, but a real rogue’s gallery there, with a Home Secretary and a Chancellor involved. I don’t recall any major criticism of putting someone against gay marriage in charge of the police force, or in charge of the law as in the case of Geoffrey Cox but it must’ve existed  

I guess perhaps crucially none of these people have every actively become party leaders, but some have certainly stood - most recently Zahawi abstained (ala Humza?) and stood last year. Esther McVey stood in 2019 for leader, and Stephen Crabb and Liam Fox stood in 2016. I don’t remember it being mentioned in those cases, but perhaps it was?

Does any of this matter? Probably not. But it is interesting that such a position hasn’t really halted any careers in the UK over the past decade. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Paco

[Rugster]

55 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Is that not a bit homophobic?

Are you assuming genders there?

[Jacksgranda]

1 minute ago, Rugster said:

Are you assuming genders there?

Probably!