Next permanent Scotland manager

[welshbairn]

58 minutes ago, Lex said:

I have a feeling Regan is going to get it simply because she has had less public disasters and humiliations than Yousaf. 

Apart from every time she opens her mouth.

[Monkey Tennis]

8 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

 @Bodie

 

That Drivetime clip is, in its own right, staggeringly dreadful.

I know Strurgeon was less sure footed latterly, but seriously,can you ever imagine her responding to questions like that?  Regan sounded like one of the weaker runners for office in a school's mock election.

It's bloody frustrating that the only intelligence in the running, voluntarily handicapped itself at the outset.

[sophia]

25 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

If this were true then the attacks on Yousaf would have focused on his ministerial record rather than ‘well he’s a Muslim so he doesn’t like the gays either’. 

I think you'll find the debating point (do you really have to use words like "attacks"?) was focussed on his hypocrisy.

Are you able to help me with confirmation that Forbes said that she "doesn't like the gays"?

[alta-pete]

@Salt n Vinegar

 Not read it myself yet…

Spoiler

It started so well. A slick campaign video. A confident message about the experience needed to deliver a strong economy and Scottish independence. Endorsements from MSPs and ministers. It looked like Kate Forbes had a very good chance of becoming Nicola Sturgeon’s successor and the next First Minister of Scotland.

Then this happened: Ms Forbes was asked about gay marriage and said that, had she been an MSP when it was made legal in 2014, she would have voted against it. The Finance Secretary, who is a member of the Free Church of Scotland, explained that, according to her faith, marriage is between a man and a woman and she would have voted in line with that. She would have voted no.

Ms Forbes said something similar on another important question. In a free society, she said, you can do whatever you want, but for her, sex was for marriage and having children without being married would be wrong. As with gay marriage, she said her position was guided by her faith: “My faith would say that sex is for marriage and that’s the approach that I would practise.”

Read more: Humza Yousaf rejects claims he skipped equal marriage vote because of mosque pressure

No sooner had Ms Forbes made the remarks than it looked like the consequences would be swift. Overnight, she lost several of her endorsements. There was talk of her campaign being in meltdown. She was also forced to say whether she was still in the race and insisted she was “at the moment”.

This weekend, she may feel things are looking slightly better. After the reaction to her comments on gay marriage, she said the campaign would be decided by party members rather than the media or MSPs and the first poll of the contest, although of supporters rather than members, appears to indicate Ms Forbes is ahead of rivals Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan. She may be taking some comfort from that poll after a difficult few days.

But it’s far from over yet. Not only does the poll suggest the race to become First Minister is still open, with 31% of those questioned saying they don’t know who to back, the members of the SNP – indeed, all of us – have to wrestle with some profound questions. What does modern Scotlandlook like? What do we expect of our First Minister? How important is their position on fundamental rights, some of which have been so recently won. The right to marry who you want, man or woman. The right to bring up your children how you wish. The right of a woman to make decisions about her body. These are at the heart of what Scotland is and will be, and where the leader of Scotland stands on them, and what he or she does about them, matters.

 

Ms Forbes says politicians must be allowed to have a conscience and must have the right to practise their faith. It would also be wrong to suggest there is unanimity on questions such as gay marriage – quite the opposite: Ms Forbes’s opinions reflect the opinions of many Scots. And it is certainly important – vital – that the Scottish Parliament is made up of men and women of different views and different faiths.

But the question of who leads the country is in a different league because not only is the First Minister an MSP, he or she is the leader of the country and our representative to other nations. Nicola Sturgeon said this week the FM’s views matter because people look to their leader as someone who will stand up for them and their rights and she’s correct. And how would Scotland be seen around the world if we had a First Minister who was opposed to gay marriage?

These are not straightforward subjects obviously, and there have been passionate discussions in The Herald newsroom as there have been all over the country. Ms Forbes also deserves credit for her honesty – she could have tried to bury the issue but didn’t and her rival for the leadership Humaz Yousaf should consider whether he has behaved in the same way. Mr Yousaf said he missed the vote on gay marriage because he had an unavoidable appointment but the former health secretary Alex Neil now says Mr Yousaf arranged a meeting as “cover” to avoid having to vote because he was under pressure from religious leaders. Mr Yousaf must now tell us what really happened and be as open about his views on gay marriage as Ms Forbes has been.

Read more: 'I'll hand independence back to the Yes movement' – vows Ash Regan

However, if the candidates for First Minister must be honest about their religious views – and they must – they should also honestly face the realities of what is required of the leader of a modern, tolerant, and diverse Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon put it well: the people look to the First Minister as someone who will stand up for their rights, which means not only the rights they have currently but also the rights they may need in the future to protect equality for everyone no matter their sex, sexuality or faith. It is a test every First Minister must pass, regardless of whether they are a person of faith or a person of none.

The problem for Ms Forbes is that her views on marriage, sexuality and abortion raise profound questions about whether she can pass that test. She says she would defend the legal right to gay marriage but the right is only on the statute book because politicians and ordinary men and women fought for it. Ms Forbes says she would “uphold the laws that have been hard won, as a servant of democracy” but the deeper question is whether we can have a leader who would not have fought for those laws in the first place. And the job of a First Minister is not only to be a servant of democracy and protect the law as it stands but to be a leader of democracy and fight to change the law when required to protect equality and make Scotland a fairer place.

On abortion for example, the current First Minister has set the right example: she led on the subject of buffer zones around healthcare settings providing abortion services and led a summit on the subject. Ms Forbes has said she too would defend the right of women to make use of the legal right to access abortion but also says she could never conceive of having an abortion herself. That will fairly raise the question in many women’s minds: how strongly would First Minister Forbes defend my rights?

 

It cannot be acceptable that such a question could hang over a First Minister, and the same applies to the question of gay marriage. Every politician, every person, is entitled to hold views guided by faith, but the people of Scotland must have confidence that the man or woman who leads their country will vehemently defend the battles on human rights that have already been won and passionately fight the battles on human rights that are yet to come. And Kate Forbes, although a confident, able minister, fails that test.

To her credit, she has tried to be honest, but equally when asked directly if she agreed with the principle of gay marriage, she appeared unable or willing to answer yes or no and said instead she would defend everybody’s right to live and love free of harassment and fear. However, Ms Forbes, or anyone who seeks to be First Minister, must realise there is a difference between a leader saying they would not undermine the law as it stands and a leader who actively promotes equality on every front. There is still work to be done to make Scotland the most tolerant and equal place it can be and it needs a First Minister who is the right person to lead the country as it tries to achieve that aim?

 

[Salt n Vinegar]

8 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

@Salt n Vinegar

 Not read it myself yet…

  Hide contents

It started so well. A slick campaign video. A confident message about the experience needed to deliver a strong economy and Scottish independence. Endorsements from MSPs and ministers. It looked like Kate Forbes had a very good chance of becoming Nicola Sturgeon’s successor and the next First Minister of Scotland.

Then this happened: Ms Forbes was asked about gay marriage and said that, had she been an MSP when it was made legal in 2014, she would have voted against it. The Finance Secretary, who is a member of the Free Church of Scotland, explained that, according to her faith, marriage is between a man and a woman and she would have voted in line with that. She would have voted no.

Ms Forbes said something similar on another important question. In a free society, she said, you can do whatever you want, but for her, sex was for marriage and having children without being married would be wrong. As with gay marriage, she said her position was guided by her faith: “My faith would say that sex is for marriage and that’s the approach that I would practise.”

Read more: Humza Yousaf rejects claims he skipped equal marriage vote because of mosque pressure

No sooner had Ms Forbes made the remarks than it looked like the consequences would be swift. Overnight, she lost several of her endorsements. There was talk of her campaign being in meltdown. She was also forced to say whether she was still in the race and insisted she was “at the moment”.

This weekend, she may feel things are looking slightly better. After the reaction to her comments on gay marriage, she said the campaign would be decided by party members rather than the media or MSPs and the first poll of the contest, although of supporters rather than members, appears to indicate Ms Forbes is ahead of rivals Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan. She may be taking some comfort from that poll after a difficult few days.

But it’s far from over yet. Not only does the poll suggest the race to become First Minister is still open, with 31% of those questioned saying they don’t know who to back, the members of the SNP – indeed, all of us – have to wrestle with some profound questions. What does modern Scotlandlook like? What do we expect of our First Minister? How important is their position on fundamental rights, some of which have been so recently won. The right to marry who you want, man or woman. The right to bring up your children how you wish. The right of a woman to make decisions about her body. These are at the heart of what Scotland is and will be, and where the leader of Scotland stands on them, and what he or she does about them, matters.

 

Ms Forbes says politicians must be allowed to have a conscience and must have the right to practise their faith. It would also be wrong to suggest there is unanimity on questions such as gay marriage – quite the opposite: Ms Forbes’s opinions reflect the opinions of many Scots. And it is certainly important – vital – that the Scottish Parliament is made up of men and women of different views and different faiths.

But the question of who leads the country is in a different league because not only is the First Minister an MSP, he or she is the leader of the country and our representative to other nations. Nicola Sturgeon said this week the FM’s views matter because people look to their leader as someone who will stand up for them and their rights and she’s correct. And how would Scotland be seen around the world if we had a First Minister who was opposed to gay marriage?

These are not straightforward subjects obviously, and there have been passionate discussions in The Herald newsroom as there have been all over the country. Ms Forbes also deserves credit for her honesty – she could have tried to bury the issue but didn’t and her rival for the leadership Humaz Yousaf should consider whether he has behaved in the same way. Mr Yousaf said he missed the vote on gay marriage because he had an unavoidable appointment but the former health secretary Alex Neil now says Mr Yousaf arranged a meeting as “cover” to avoid having to vote because he was under pressure from religious leaders. Mr Yousaf must now tell us what really happened and be as open about his views on gay marriage as Ms Forbes has been.

Read more: 'I'll hand independence back to the Yes movement' – vows Ash Regan

However, if the candidates for First Minister must be honest about their religious views – and they must – they should also honestly face the realities of what is required of the leader of a modern, tolerant, and diverse Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon put it well: the people look to the First Minister as someone who will stand up for their rights, which means not only the rights they have currently but also the rights they may need in the future to protect equality for everyone no matter their sex, sexuality or faith. It is a test every First Minister must pass, regardless of whether they are a person of faith or a person of none.

The problem for Ms Forbes is that her views on marriage, sexuality and abortion raise profound questions about whether she can pass that test. She says she would defend the legal right to gay marriage but the right is only on the statute book because politicians and ordinary men and women fought for it. Ms Forbes says she would “uphold the laws that have been hard won, as a servant of democracy” but the deeper question is whether we can have a leader who would not have fought for those laws in the first place. And the job of a First Minister is not only to be a servant of democracy and protect the law as it stands but to be a leader of democracy and fight to change the law when required to protect equality and make Scotland a fairer place.

On abortion for example, the current First Minister has set the right example: she led on the subject of buffer zones around healthcare settings providing abortion services and led a summit on the subject. Ms Forbes has said she too would defend the right of women to make use of the legal right to access abortion but also says she could never conceive of having an abortion herself. That will fairly raise the question in many women’s minds: how strongly would First Minister Forbes defend my rights?

 

It cannot be acceptable that such a question could hang over a First Minister, and the same applies to the question of gay marriage. Every politician, every person, is entitled to hold views guided by faith, but the people of Scotland must have confidence that the man or woman who leads their country will vehemently defend the battles on human rights that have already been won and passionately fight the battles on human rights that are yet to come. And Kate Forbes, although a confident, able minister, fails that test.

To her credit, she has tried to be honest, but equally when asked directly if she agreed with the principle of gay marriage, she appeared unable or willing to answer yes or no and said instead she would defend everybody’s right to live and love free of harassment and fear. However, Ms Forbes, or anyone who seeks to be First Minister, must realise there is a difference between a leader saying they would not undermine the law as it stands and a leader who actively promotes equality on every front. There is still work to be done to make Scotland the most tolerant and equal place it can be and it needs a First Minister who is the right person to lead the country as it tries to achieve that aim?

 

Thanks for that. Interesting read! 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Maybe it'll end up being 4d chess stuff from Forbes. Just get all the bad shit out on day 1 and you won't get blindsided 2 days before voting ends. Gives her a month to put across a positive message.

[Savage Henry]

1 hour ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Agreed.

Forbes isn't finished by any means.  As time goes on, there's every chance Yousaf will be exposed as an obnoxious liar, Regan as not sharp, and Forbes as an honest, articulate and genuinely nice person.  Forbes is the most competent out of the three IMO, so you'll see 'big names' coming out to defend her.. this has already started with Jim McColl.

Most people genuinely don't care about the religious beliefs of others, including when it comes to gay marriage and the likes.  With Forbes having stated she isn't going to reopen such debates, people won't care.

“Gay marriage and the likes”?   Really?   
 

I would not vote for an SNP led by Kate Forbes.  Her (non) views on conversion therapy suggest she isn’t “genuinely nice”, or indeed genuine.  
 

But that’s entirely besides the point, she has destroyed her own campaign by melting under the slightest hint of critique.  It’s not a savage right wing press that asked all these basic questions that she couldn’t handle.  Regan wilted in a question from channel 4 about conspiracy theories.    The standard is utterly abysmal on the right of the SNP.  

[carpetmonster]

50 minutes ago, sophia said:

I think you'll find the debating point (do you really have to use words like "attacks"?) was focussed on his hypocrisy.

Are you able to help me with confirmation that Forbes said that she "doesn't like the gays"?

And that ‘debating point’ about  ‘hypocrisy’ was coming from which angle? His beard? His falling off a scooter? His ministerial record? 
 

ETA - actually no, I’m not playing here. The way Alex Neil put that out was most definitely not a ‘debating point’, it was an attack. 

Edited February 25, 2023 by carpetmonster

[renton]

9 minutes ago, Bodie said:

Maybe it'll end up being 4d chess stuff from Forbes. Just get all the bad shit out on day 1 and you won't get blindsided 2 days before voting ends. Gives her a month to put across a positive message.

The thing is I'm pretty sure she's not going to be running on a particularly left wing economic platform either, which is entwined with her Indy plan as well. Look technocratic and competent, hope more people vote for you, put pressure on WM. 

So, she's socially conservative, economically centrist/right wing and an Indy gradualist. As a suite of policy platforms go, its hardly enticing to the membership, I suspect.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Apart from every time she opens her mouth.

Announcement on 27th March will be something like....

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Looking at this leadership race, cant help but be overcome with cringe that this is apparently the best we have to offer? Give one of these rejects a year and parachute Black into Holyrood i think. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Just now, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Looking at this leadership race, cant help but be overcome with cringe that this is apparently the best we have to offer? Give one of these rejects a year and parachute Black into Holyrood i think. 

I think whoever they select will Truss it.

It won't be Black that steps in but Robertson.

[Richey Edwards]

If I was still a party member I would not be voting for any of these diddies.

[sophia]

50 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

And that ‘debating point’ about  ‘hypocrisy’ was coming from which angle? His beard? His falling off a scooter? His ministerial record? 
 

ETA - actually no, I’m not playing here. The way Alex Neil put that out was most definitely not a ‘debating point’, it was an attack. 

So nothing to back up your polemic?

 

[carpetmonster]

Just now, sophia said:

So nothing to back up your polemic?

 

if I’m dealing with someone genuinely credulous enough that thinking the best way of introducing a debating point to the SNP membership is by going on Times Radio with Ruth Davidson - you’re going to catch tons of them there! - then I’m not sure what to tell you. 
 

If you’re at it, which you most certainly are, then putting yourself on the cross about semantics is low effort at best. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

21 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I think whoever they select will Truss it.

It won't be Black that steps in but Robertson.

Thing about Robertson is i think significantly less of him and his ‘reasons’ for not standing. But yes I agree whoever comes in absolutely fucks it (and sets indy back decades) and someone else comes in to pick up the pieces, all because of three egos who cant stand aside and give Scotland a good leader. 

18 minutes ago, Richey Edwards said:

If I was still a party member I would not be voting for any of these diddies.

Absolutely, ill be watching my elected reps to see who they come out in favour of closely. 

[welshbairn]

I'm sure Cherry put up that numpty Regan to run so she can step in to save the day when she Liz Trusses it. 

[Donathan]

21 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Thing about Robertson is i think significantly less of him and his ‘reasons’ for not standing. But yes I agree whoever comes in absolutely fucks it (and sets indy back decades) and someone else comes in to pick up the pieces, all because of three egos who cant stand aside and give Scotland a good leader. 

Absolutely, ill be watching my elected reps to see who they come out in favour of closely. 

Robertson’s youngest child hasn’t even reached his second birthday yet so I can understand why he doesn’t want the role at this point. 

[orfc]

43 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

if I’m dealing with someone genuinely credulous enough that thinking the best way of introducing a debating point to the SNP membership is by going on Times Radio with Ruth Davidson - you’re going to catch tons of them there! - then I’m not sure what to tell you. 
 

If you’re at it, which you most certainly are, then putting yourself on the cross about semantics is low effort at best. 

I've noticed you tend to accuse people whose arguments you can't answer as being "at it". It was me yesterday.

[carpetmonster]

Just now, orfc said:

I've noticed you tend to accuse people whose arguments you can't answer as being "at it". It was me yesterday.

I’ve noticed you never came back to me on your ‘expensive legal case re equalities law’ when I asked you if you were referring to Maya Forstater.