The dull dull dull John Swinney thread

[Salt n Vinegar]

8 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Jeezo, I was just about to express my delight in having a staunch Proddy as deputy FM as well.

Who would I be to judge her level of staunchness?

I don't think it's too much of an issue in Scotland at the moment, but for example, the conflation of religion and meteorology is not unknown.  I was searching for American politicians who appear ignorant of science ( I think it would be a pretty wide field) but was surprised to see one of the first hits was from England.  Maybe the lack of judgement would be expected from the person concerned, but see this from 2014 ...

"A UKIP councillor has blamed the recent storms and heavy floods across Britain on the Government's decision to legalise gay marriage. David Silvester said the prime minister had acted "arrogantly against the Gospel"."

I wouldn't send someone like that for a loaf, let alone trust their judgement on political matters.

Source - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25793358&ved=2ahUKEwiS2NiS3oKGAxUXg_0HHZEXAmgQjjh6BAgUEAE&usg=AOvVaw0Z2u4tL_9zIcb5n1fdr4wk

 

 

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

If there is a political disagreement about something, I'd prefer it to be settled on the basis of logic, evidence and reason, not on an opinion based on a lack of such considerations and perhaps founded on a book or tradition formulated by folk who knew less about how the world works than the averagely well educated teenager in an average Scottish school does now.

 

1) Political decisions are often made over issues that cannot be determined by facts or reason alone - they are value/ethical choices to be made. For example, assisted dying cannot be 'proven' by evidence to be a justifiable or unjustifiable right - the decision is a collective value judgment. 

2) The idea that secular politicians are in any way more guided by evidence or reason than personally religious politicians is a false starting point. 

3) The 'secular' culture that all Scottish/UK politicians operate within is itself largely the product of protestant traditions, supercharged by neoliberalism (another faith-based practice) to place individual rights and identity above any collective or societal norms. To be 'secular' is not to adopt a neutral position - and it is also why the flashpoints of politics/religion in Britain are substantially different to the flashpoints in France. 

Edited May 10 by vikingTON

[Crùbag]

20 hours ago, MazzyStar said:

John Swinney still waffling on about the snp being “centre left” the day after making Kate Forbes deputy FM is very funny. 

 

I don't like Forbes but apparently she's voted progressively on workers' rights. She only gets upset when it comes to genitals and orifices. And working on the Sabbath.

[A Diamond For Me]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

1) Political decisions are often made over issues that cannot be determined by facts or reason alone - they are value/ethical choices to be made. For example, assisted dying cannot be 'proven' by evidence to be a justifiable or unjustifiable right - the decision is a collective value judgment. 

2) The idea that secular politicians are in any way more guided be evidence or reason that personally religious politicians is a false starting point. 

3) The 'secular' culture that all Scottish/UK politicians operate within is itself largely the product of protestant traditions, supercharged by neoliberalism (another faith-based practice) to place individual rights and identity above any collective or societal norms. To be 'secular' is not to adopt a neutral position - and it is also why the flashpoints of politics/religion in Britain are substantially different to the flashpoints in France. 

 

It's also true that "secularism" is not a single, monolithic thing.  People often treat it as if it was, as if it was a particular principle, but it's not.  The tradition of Dutch pluralism is very different from French laïcité.  Similarly, the US has a constitutional separation of church and state - albeit a separation under a great deal of pressure these days - but it's very normal and unremarkable for athletes to thank God when they win something.  Here our head of state is also head of the Church of England, the Church of England gets bishops in the House of Lords but it would be considered odd for an athlete to thank God when they win something - and indeed would probably prompt sneering on P&B and elsewhere.  In France it would be thought downright offensive. 
People often say they're in favour of secularism in general, but as you say this posits a very particular, contingent worldview as neutral, and they don't often specify what kind of secularism they want.

Edited May 10 by A Diamond For Me

[Salt n Vinegar]

56 minutes ago, virginton said:

1) Political decisions are often made over issues that cannot be determined by facts or reason alone - they are value/ethical choices to be made. For example, assisted dying cannot be 'proven' by evidence to be a justifiable or unjustifiable right - the decision is a collective value judgment. 

2) The idea that secular politicians are in any way more guided be evidence or reason that personally religious politicians is a false starting point. 

3) The 'secular' culture that all Scottish/UK politicians operate within is itself largely the product of protestant traditions, supercharged by neoliberalism (another faith-based practice) to place individual rights and identity above any collective or societal norms. To be 'secular' is not to adopt a neutral position - and it is also why the flashpoints of politics/religion in Britain are substantially different to the flashpoints in France. 

I agree with some of what you say, but I suppose my issue is that decisions on e.g. fertility, abortion, adoption, end of life care, global warming, etc are complicated enough when the focus is on science, evidence and experience. When a viewpoint on these and the rights of others is affected not by things like evidence but more by an immovable, personal position based on "faith", for me, that's a problem.

(To me a secular state would be preferable to the current arrangement where we have a head of state who is also the head of a sect of a church, and apart from Iran we are the only country in the world that reserves places in it's legislature for religious figureheads.)

In the run up to a general election, parties opposed to the SNP will use any and every tactic to undermine support for the governing party. The Greens are tied to the SNP record due to their previous collective responsibility, so really a main line of attack will be on Forbes' social policy views. As long as she is similarly tied by collective responsibility and votes accordingly I think she'll be fine. I certainly hope so.

 

Edited May 10 by Salt n Vinegar

[Freedom Farter]

Martin Luther King Jr, as you'd have imagined from his name, was a staunch proddy. He was also a committed socialist. 

An example of how he combined his Christianity and his socialism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_People's_Campaign

Historically, you had staunch proddy socialists like the Diggers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers) in 1600s England.

Despite the claims they make for themselves, the political right do not and never have owned Protestant Christianity.

[Marten]

In the US, and to a lesser extend in the UK, social conservatives are generally also firmly on the right on most other issues. But elsewhere it can be quite common for social conservatives to have other views that are on the left. In The Netherlands there is a party (ChristianUnion) who are social conservatives but firmly on the left economically, have a consistent record of voting for workers' rights, to improve social security and things like that. Their explanation is that from a Christian point of view, they are meant to care for the "weaker" in society. So if anything, they feel that it's more Christian to be on the left on those issues.

[Scary Bear]

1 hour ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I'm not in the least bothered that Forbes is religious.  I suppose that the thing I'm more interested in will be how she votes in Parliament.  In a case where an individual considers how to use political power, it's what you vote for that demonstrates the extent to which your "faith" might impact the lives of others.

I despair when I see politicians publicly professing a deep religious belief as if that in itself says anything about their suitability for office.  It doesn't impress me at all, any more than finding out their favourite colour or whether the have vinegar or sauce. What they do in the privacy of their own homes or religious institutions is a matter for their own judgement but it doesn't have an effect on my life.

I don't know which is worse - a politician who thinks that being seen or photographed holding a Bible/Quran/Spaghetti Monster recipe book (blessed be his/her noodly appendages) makes them an electable entity, or the gullible voters who think "oh look, he's/she's obviously a holy person I must vote for him/her" (rarely a "her"). Trump tried it and IMO he looked utterly ridiculous.

If there is a political disagreement about something, I'd prefer it to be settled on the basis of logic, evidence and reason, not on an opinion based on a lack of such considerations and perhaps founded on a book or tradition formulated by folk who knew less about how the world works than the averagely well educated teenager in an average Scottish school does now.

 

You can only vote (or not) for the people that the parties put forward. Says more about the people that are members of political parties (e.g. G. Danger) and their choices than it does about the voters. 

[Granny Danger]

28 minutes ago, Marten said:

In the US, and to a lesser extend in the UK, social conservatives are generally also firmly on the right on most other issues. But elsewhere it can be quite common for social conservatives to have other views that are on the left. In The Netherlands there is a party (ChristianUnion) who are social conservatives but firmly on the left economically, have a consistent record of voting for workers' rights, to improve social security and things like that. Their explanation is that from a Christian point of view, they are meant to care for the "weaker" in society. So if anything, they feel that it's more Christian to be on the left on those issues.

I don’t want to sidetrack the debate but what you’re describing is so far removed from people who proclaim themselves Christians but advocate practices that are the antipathy of what Christ supposedly preached.

 

[Ned Nederlander]

On 08/05/2024 at 17:42, Granny Danger said:

That’s me resigning my SNP membership.  Can’t see me voting for them in any elections either.

Why is it that an avowed racist would never get a position like Deputy Leader but it’s OK to appoint an avowed homophobe?
 

 

[Freedom Farter]

35 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I don’t want to sidetrack the debate but what you’re describing is so far removed from people who proclaim themselves Christians but advocate practices that are the antipathy of what Christ supposedly preached.

 

If there's a lot of right wing Christians on the go at the moment that could be because there's just a lot of right wing folk on the go overall. I'm meaning "right wing" here regarding attitudes to distributive justice, given that's what politics is most about. As VKTon touched on in an above comment, the broader zeitgeist we live in impacts folk's perceptions including how they perceive their religion. Much of the world has been under the spell of neoliberalism since the 1980s, the anglosphere especially so, therefore we've had right wing Christians and non-Christians alike. In 1960s South America you had left wing Christians with their Liberation Theology and they were reflective of the broader South American zeitgeist at that time.

[JS_FFC]

 

[ScotiaNostra]

8 hours ago, Marten said:

In the US, and to a lesser extend in the UK, social conservatives are generally also firmly on the right on most other issues. But elsewhere it can be quite common for social conservatives to have other views that are on the left. In The Netherlands there is a party (ChristianUnion) who are social conservatives but firmly on the left economically, have a consistent record of voting for workers' rights, to improve social security and things like that. Their explanation is that from a Christian point of view, they are meant to care for the "weaker" in society. So if anything, they feel that it's more Christian to be on the left on those issues.

Social Justice

[ScotiaNostra]

6 hours ago, Freedom Farter said:

If there's a lot of right wing Christians on the go at the moment that could be because there's just a lot of right wing folk on the go overall. I'm meaning "right wing" here regarding attitudes to distributive justice, given that's what politics is most about. As VKTon touched on in an above comment, the broader zeitgeist we live in impacts folk's perceptions including how they perceive their religion. Much of the world has been under the spell of neoliberalism since the 1980s, the anglosphere especially so, therefore we've had right wing Christians and non-Christians alike. In 1960s South America you had left wing Christians with their Liberation Theology and they were reflective of the broader South American zeitgeist at that time.

It wasnt just South America, North America had many Leftist Catholic groups like the Camden 28 and still does to some extent

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

8 hours ago, Freedom Farter said:

Martin Luther King Jr, as you'd have imagined from his name, was a staunch proddy. He was also a committed socialist. 

An example of how he combined his Christianity and his socialism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_People's_Campaign

Historically, you had staunch proddy socialists like the Diggers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers) in 1600s England.

Despite the claims they make for themselves, the political right do not and never have owned Protestant Christianity.

Correct, FF.

There are many different shades of Christianity, all with different traditions and theological stances.  Adherents of a denomination will vary wildly on their positions on all sorts of topics too.  The congregation of which I'm a part of has Unionists and Nationalists, left and right.

[JS_FFC]

Interesting early campaign tactics from Swinney.

 

Almost every SNP politician who’s been interviewed in the last week has been almost entirely focused on attacking the Tory held seats in the North East of the country and the far South near the border.

 

There has been no focus at all on the tartan wall working class seats in Glasgow and the central belt which are currently SNP held and Labour are targeting.

 

To me this suggests confidence from Swinney. The internal polling must be showing that the threat of large scale losses to Labour is overrated and they’re able to adopt an aggressive strategy in Tory held seats instead of ploughing resources into defending their own seats. 
 

Paddy Power offering 9/4 for the SNP to win the most seats in Scotland is buying money imo.

Edited May 29 by JS_FFC

[BFTD]

7 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

Interesting early campaign tactics from Swinney.

 

Almost every SNP politician who’s been interviewed in the last week has been almost entirely focused on attacking the Tory held seats in the North East of the country and the far South near the border.

 

There has been no focus at all on the tartan wall working class seats in Glasgow and the central belt which are currently SNP held and Labour are targeting.

 

To me this suggests confidence from Swinney. The internal polling must be showing that the threat of large scale losses to Labour is overrated and they’re able to adopt an aggressive strategy in Tory held seats instead of ploughing resources into defending their own seats. 
 

Paddy Power offering 9/4 for the SNP to win the most seats in Scotland is buying money imo.

Alternatively, he's given up hope of keeping the seats Labour are targeting and/or still isn't a very good leader.

I'd still be bracing for a 2017-style bad night, with one of the unionist parties having a boost and at least a portion of independence-minded voters feeling their vote is irrelevant again.

[Boo Khaki]

I'm sticking with the consensus that it looks likely to be 50/50 SNP/Labour in Scotland at best, and a thumping Labour landslide overall.

Mixed emotions, and I'm no sure exactly how I'll process the "meh"ness of the SNP losing significant numbers of MP's, juxtaposed against the elation of seeing potentially hundreds of Tory kernts emptied. 

Idea of Starmer in #10 doesn't exactly enthuse me, but if even one of the uber-kernt Tories, Braverman, Badenoch, etc loses their seat I'll be doing cartwheels.