The Kate Forbes thread

[Granny Danger]

2 hours ago, sparky88 said:

Minority government is only a problem for the SNP. Its not a problem for the electorate. 

Minority government shouldn’t be a problem for anyone.  In a Parliament elected by PR there is nothing wrong with only being able to pass legislation that has majority support.

If the SNP government have a progressive legislative programme it should win support and if on some issues Labour wants to vote with the Tories then so be it.

 

[BFTD]

12 minutes ago, A Diamond For Me said:

I'm not in the SNP so it's not really my fight, but I'd say SNP members ought to be - and probably mostly are - wary of the fact that so much of the boosting for Forbes come from the barking dullards of the right wing commentariat who might well enjoy deregulation, "listening to the business community" and kicking people from some or other culturally disfavoured minority but are never, ever, ever going to back or vote for independence. 

Aye, it's like when Unionist posters on here start talking about how they disagree about independence, but they've always had a lot of time for a particular Nationalist otherwise.

Generally, it means that they're a danger who's likely to cause damage to the chances of independence.

[ScotiaNostra]

3 hours ago, Freedom Farter said:

I didn't mean censored, I meant opposed and argued against.

I see, though I have seen people arguing for it also . I surprisngly saw on GB news someone from Jeremy Corbyn old campaign team  argue for nationalising all public utilities and the GB host agreeing. Though the host is a complete wrongun on any other topic.

[Savage Henry]

Joanna Cherry: I wanted Forbes but she didn’t run so I’ll support John and principles be damned.  

[Granny Danger]

2 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

Joanna Cherry: I wanted Forbes but she didn’t run so I’ll resign.

Now that would cheer my Friday up.

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

17 hours ago, Freedom Farter said:

I pursuing increased GDP is always the best way to improve societal well-being. This seems a reasonable point considering things like India being 5th in the GDP list yet only 118th in the Human Development Index.

Generally the countries with the highest GDP per capita are also the highest in the HDI. India’s GDP per capita is very low so it’s not really a great example to use.

[Freedom Farter]

2 hours ago, Bonksy+HisChristianParade said:

Generally the countries with the highest GDP per capita are also the highest in the HDI. India’s GDP per capita is very low so it’s not really a great example to use.

Aye, that was a shite attempt at a point from me and I'm glad for your intervention. In future I'll stick to quoting from or at least paraphrasing experts rather than trying to freestyle it.

It's annoying I made an arse of it on India because India, when analysed properly, actually provides a good case study. Here, for example:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/india-should-stop-obsessing-about-gdp-and-start-focusing-what-matters/

 

Anyway, this from Jason Hickel shows how the debate can be relevant to us here at home:

Quote

What actually matters for human well-being is provisioning – in other words, people’s access to the resources they need to live long, healthy, flourishing lives.  The reason GDP is an unsuitable metric here is because it only counts a very narrow slice of economic activity; specifically, that which has to do with commodity exchange-value.  It does not count all forms of provisioning; in fact, much of the provisioning we rely on is totally ignored by, and irrelevant to, GDP.  Milanovic knows this.

So it’s quite possible that GDP could go up while provisioning declines; for instance, if the UK National Health Service were privatized, GDP would go up but people’s access to healthcare would be curtailed (the same is true for virtually all forms of privatization or enclosure).  Similarly, GDP could go down while provisioning improves; for instance, if the UK government imposed rent controls, or restored public housing, GDP might take a hit but people would have easier access to housing.  This trade-off is known as the Lauderdale Paradox.

(Source: https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/tag/degrowth).

Edited May 3 by Freedom Farter

[tamthebam]

4 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Now that would cheer my Friday up.

she might well be kicked out at the next election in favour of a Lib Dem anyway

[The Golden God]

He only cares about her cause she’s also a right wing arsehole like him. If it was any of the reasonable SNP members “stitched up” he’d be delighted. 

[tamthebam]

I think Murdo was stitched up when they removed his brain and replaced it with a neep

[carpetmonster]

19 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

I think Murdo was stitched up when they removed his brain and replaced it with a neep

Oh no, it definitely did him a favour. Another brainstorm like 'people in Scotland hate the Tories....should we rename the Party?' would have seen him be first in line on the plane to Rwanda. 

[BFTD]

The baldy mafia moving to block a guid hoanest lassie with luxurious long locks.

Only a matter of time before it's revealed THAT WOMAN was wearing a Krankie wig for popularity all this time  

[SandyCromarty]

On 03/05/2024 at 11:34, A Diamond For Me said:

I'm not in the SNP so it's not really my fight, but I'd say SNP members ought to be - and probably mostly are - wary of the fact that so much of the boosting for Forbes come from the barking dullards of the right wing commentariat who might well enjoy deregulation, "listening to the business community" and kicking people from some or other culturally disfavoured minority but are never, ever, ever going to back or vote for independence. 

As I mentioned on another post two of our family living in the central belt, fervent nationalists, life long SNP members and in business, were all for Kate Forbes.

 

[SandyCromarty]

17 hours ago, tamthebam said:

I think Murdo was stitched up when they removed his brain and replaced it with a neep

No need to disrespect neeps.

 

[A Diamond For Me]

On 04/05/2024 at 15:53, SandyCromarty said:

As I mentioned on another post two of our family living in the central belt, fervent nationalists, life long SNP members and in business, were all for Kate Forbes.

 

I'm not saying that grassroots nationalist support for Forbes doesn't exist - it clearly does.  I'm just saying that when so much of the Forbes boosterism is coming from the British nationalist right and being platformed in the Spectator, the Times etc it's worth thinking about why that is.  It's not because Fraser Nelson, David Maddox and Stephen Daisely are sincerely and disinterestedly thinking about what's best for achieving Scottish independence. 

Edited May 11 by A Diamond For Me

[sophia]

I thought Kate's words, inclusive as they were, after she was confirmed as our deputy leader, put the noxious gas of Granny Danger and the Ragers at a peep. 

[dirty dingus]

Kate Forbes has quite a lot of support in the SNP groups I'm in from what I'd consider working class women who were angry over the trans stuff.

[Savage Henry]

8 hours ago, dirty dingus said:

Kate Forbes has quite a lot of support in the SNP groups I'm in from what I'd consider working class women who were angry over the trans stuff.

Nobody genuinely gives a shit about the trans stuff.  

[dirty dingus]

6 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

Nobody genuinely gives a shit about the trans stuff.  

I don't either but these women say they are threatened by safe space issues and a lot are on the Cherry train.

[Suspect Device]

22 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

Nobody genuinely gives a shit about the trans stuff.  

If only that were true.

It gets far more media coverage than it really should and even then, most people don't care too much. A very small minority on both sides of the debate really, really give a shit about it.