I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
THE Scottish Greens may pull out of the Bute House deal with the SNP if Kate Forbes becomes First Minister potentially precipitating a Holyrood election, the Herald on Sunday has been told.
Sources indicated it could be difficult for the smaller pro-independence party to maintain a commitment to the agreement under Ms Forbes even if she adopted a pragmatic approach to governing.
They may not get the chance. The Bute House Agreement can be ended by either party. @theSNP has governed very successfully before without an outright majority. Perhaps it’s time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
It seems that the GRA stuff may not be the all consuming obsession of voters that the all consumed obsessives think it is.
I think most would agree, so why is Forbe's Christianity causing SNP figures to threaten to flounce?
It’s certainly got lots of tabloids and ALBA supporters saying it’s causing SNP figures threatening to flounce, not necessarily the same thing.
Interesting point is that it appears Sturgeon is backing Humza Useless, her pets are out this morning punting him big time. Surely unless her and Peter are counting the votes, she cannot believe he has even a remote hope. Also why not promoting her pet Macbeth who has always been groomed as her successor, skeletons must be rattling in the cupboards right enough.
No idea who Sturgeon supports. Weirdly Eck (among many others) has been far more vocal on who should lead the SNP than Nicola.
She is far more sneaky TUD, she will as usual rig it behind the scenes via acolytes and other methods rather than give an opinion in public , give Salmond his dues in that he at least is up and front about what he supports and wants independence.
I guess I'm one of the few on here who will actually have a vote, so I promise faithfully to let everyone know when the fix is in, whether it's Murrell money or Sturgeon boot boys coming round.
You will never know TUD, it will be done in the Magpie residence and evidence shredded or deleted prior to result. Will be many "I do not recall " moments assuming certain people are still at liberty. Please promise you will not vote Macbeth or Humza Useless.
Haven't decided yet (& we still don't have all the runners & riders), still to work out which will cause maximum annoyance
TUD, If I was daft enough to fund the Murrell's I woudl be going for either Forbes or Regan , Regan favourite as she has at least shown she is for independence. They do not have much competition if a fair contest for sure. It needs a big clear out of clan and the Greens booted into touch, a bonfire of Imelda's pet charities who make the policy badly needed. Wonder if we will find out why she really went in such a hurry , for sure the shredders and disk cleaning would have been on overtime the week prior.
Has anyone seen Malc & Joanna Cherry in the same room?
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the dreaded 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
The claim on twitter that it is from this weekend is just the usual dishonest garbage from a remainer-bot, and idiots who want to believe it, fall for it, or knowingly find it convenient for propaganda.
FWIW the only thing I noticed missing in Tesco's fruit and veg this morning is that they didn't have the particular blueberries I wanted so I bought the other ones instead.
Yes, good work. Perhaps Brexit is to blame though, for Stuart's head being emptier than those shelves ?
- “… if the YouGov Scotland poll turns out to be harbinger rather than an outlier then I may revise my views…”
Oh look! Second post-resignation poll in a row with SNP well above that YouGov level (which was 38% incidentally, not the 29% shouted out in the PB piece.)
Funny how neither the Savanta (SNP 42%) nor this Survation poll got reported by PB. I thought this was meant to be a service for punters?
The SNP remain in a strong position in our 1st poll that has fieldwork conducted after Nicola Sturgeon’s surprise resignation last week. At 43% the party would be just 2% shy of their solid 2019 Westminster showing.
That is before the Labour attack machine lays into Kate Forbes as an anti abortion member of an anti homosexual marriage church, if as is likely she succeeds Sturgeon as FM
Wrong. On the new boundaries SLab would gain just 5 SNP seats, balanced out by the SNP gaining 4 SCon seats. The British Assimilationist parties would still be floundering:
SNP 47 seats (-1) Assimilationists 10 seats (+1)
As for your Forbes prediction: duly screenshotted.
Forbes is an interesting one. There is some risk to being devoutly religious in politics in nations as secular as ours. Tim Farron being the obvious example.
My own Scottish ancestors were Free Presbyterian ministers, and it is still part of the family culture. It is one thing that would prevent me from standing for election myself.
Some enterprising journo should ask Forbes what her views are on evolution.
She could just say she believes that a benign, creative force called God made the earth, but whether he did so over seven 24 hour days or over millennia of evolution is more information than she has access to. I think it's fair enough if you support gay marriage to be concerned about the possibility of her opposing it, but it is a stretch to say her very belief in God is a liability. Theresa May was a Churchgoer. Rishi Sunak is a practising Hindu - are you recommending he be quizzed on hinduism's creation myths?
As an engineer, “Intelligent Design” is an insult to God. Look at the human eye - it’s utterly crap and requires a huge amount of processing to make the images usable.
Plus the idea that God kicked off the universe x billions years ago, and played a trillion gazillion bank snooker shot, knowing that humans would appear at the end of that is way, way cooler.
It works though. And surely if it's so awful, it's an argument against millions of years of evolutionary development too?
Evolution works on the basis of patching repeatedly to improve performance. Radical redesign from the top can’t happen.
Hence the human eye - millions of years of bodges to the original photoreceptors.
That's why evolution is so good. It ensures that we have exactly what we need to survive. Other animals may have better eyesight than us, but we (and they) have the eyesight we need. That aligns perfectly with the creative design theory too. However we got here, we're the right design.
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the dreaded 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
He was party leader in Westminster - a position not without responsibility - including removing some of their talent to the back benches because they thought for themselves and wouldn’t toe the Sturgeon line. Until that Cherry tweet I wasn’t aware of his faith - it never seemed to be brought up.
Politicians should be entitled to a personal faith - only if it intrudes into public policy should it become an issue. As the first Queen Elizabeth said I would not open windows into men's souls
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
It didn't stop the Tory and Labour attack dogs and their chums in the media for attacking Tim Farron for his religious beliefs though. And for switching every interview with him onto the question of his religious beliefs.
He was able in practical terms to distinguish between his religious beliefs and what was Lib Dem party policy.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
Has Blackford ever taken a position on gay marriage ? Religious faith is irrelevant if it doesn't impact political stances. How are people judging the two in that point ? (I'm singularly uninformed on the detail if Scottish politics.)
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
He was party leader in Westminster - a position not without responsibility - including removing some of their talent to the back benches because they thought for themselves and wouldn’t toe the Sturgeon line. Until that Cherry tweet I wasn’t aware of his faith - it never seemed to be brought up.
Politicians should be entitled to a personal faith - only if it intrudes into public policy should it become an issue. As the first Queen Elizabeth said I would not open windows into men's souls
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
Has Blackford ever taken a position on gay marriage ? Religious faith is irrelevant if it doesn't impact political stances. How are people judging the two in that point ? (I'm singularly uninformed on the detail if Scottish politics.)
Biden has always done a good job of swerving this problem on abortion.
The NI Protocol which the government is trying to improve was proposed and negotiated by Boris Johnson. He lied about what it meant (checks on the GB/NI border) and is now reportedly arguing that it must be abolished altogether. Even by Johnson's standards this is pure hypocrisy.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
Has Blackford ever taken a position on gay marriage ? Religious faith is irrelevant if it doesn't impact political stances. How are people judging the two in that point ? (I'm singularly uninformed on the detail if Scottish politics.)
Wrong parliament, surely, for there to be a concrete test, one would think. Though somewhat to my surprise there was one -
It seems that the GRA stuff may not be the all consuming obsession of voters that the all consumed obsessives think it is.
I think most would agree, so why is Forbe's Christianity causing SNP figures to threaten to flounce?
It’s certainly got lots of tabloids and ALBA supporters saying it’s causing SNP figures threatening to flounce, not necessarily the same thing.
Interesting point is that it appears Sturgeon is backing Humza Useless, her pets are out this morning punting him big time. Surely unless her and Peter are counting the votes, she cannot believe he has even a remote hope. Also why not promoting her pet Macbeth who has always been groomed as her successor, skeletons must be rattling in the cupboards right enough.
No idea who Sturgeon supports. Weirdly Eck (among many others) has been far more vocal on who should lead the SNP than Nicola.
She is far more sneaky TUD, she will as usual rig it behind the scenes via acolytes and other methods rather than give an opinion in public , give Salmond his dues in that he at least is up and front about what he supports and wants independence.
I guess I'm one of the few on here who will actually have a vote, so I promise faithfully to let everyone know when the fix is in, whether it's Murrell money or Sturgeon boot boys coming round.
You will never know TUD, it will be done in the Magpie residence and evidence shredded or deleted prior to result. Will be many "I do not recall " moments assuming certain people are still at liberty. Please promise you will not vote Macbeth or Humza Useless.
Haven't decided yet (& we still don't have all the runners & riders), still to work out which will cause maximum annoyance
TUD, If I was daft enough to fund the Murrell's I woudl be going for either Forbes or Regan , Regan favourite as she has at least shown she is for independence. They do not have much competition if a fair contest for sure. It needs a big clear out of clan and the Greens booted into touch, a bonfire of Imelda's pet charities who make the policy badly needed. Wonder if we will find out why she really went in such a hurry , for sure the shredders and disk cleaning would have been on overtime the week prior.
Has anyone seen Malc & Joanna Cherry in the same room?
She seems like a good choice, personable, seems reasonably intelligent, and would allow the SNP to draw a line under the mess Sturgeon got into over the GRB. Does she stand any chance?
It seems that the GRA stuff may not be the all consuming obsession of voters that the all consumed obsessives think it is.
I think most would agree, so why is Forbe's Christianity causing SNP figures to threaten to flounce?
It’s certainly got lots of tabloids and ALBA supporters saying it’s causing SNP figures threatening to flounce, not necessarily the same thing.
Interesting point is that it appears Sturgeon is backing Humza Useless, her pets are out this morning punting him big time. Surely unless her and Peter are counting the votes, she cannot believe he has even a remote hope. Also why not promoting her pet Macbeth who has always been groomed as her successor, skeletons must be rattling in the cupboards right enough.
No idea who Sturgeon supports. Weirdly Eck (among many others) has been far more vocal on who should lead the SNP than Nicola.
She is far more sneaky TUD, she will as usual rig it behind the scenes via acolytes and other methods rather than give an opinion in public , give Salmond his dues in that he at least is up and front about what he supports and wants independence.
I guess I'm one of the few on here who will actually have a vote, so I promise faithfully to let everyone know when the fix is in, whether it's Murrell money or Sturgeon boot boys coming round.
You will never know TUD, it will be done in the Magpie residence and evidence shredded or deleted prior to result. Will be many "I do not recall " moments assuming certain people are still at liberty. Please promise you will not vote Macbeth or Humza Useless.
Haven't decided yet (& we still don't have all the runners & riders), still to work out which will cause maximum annoyance
TUD, If I was daft enough to fund the Murrell's I woudl be going for either Forbes or Regan , Regan favourite as she has at least shown she is for independence. They do not have much competition if a fair contest for sure. It needs a big clear out of clan and the Greens booted into touch, a bonfire of Imelda's pet charities who make the policy badly needed. Wonder if we will find out why she really went in such a hurry , for sure the shredders and disk cleaning would have been on overtime the week prior.
Has anyone seen Malc & Joanna Cherry in the same room?
She seems like a good choice, personable, seems reasonably intelligent, and would allow the SNP to draw a line under the mess Sturgeon got into over the GRB. Does she stand any chance?
I wouldn't rule her out in a hurry at all. But as TUD says we have to see who else is running.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
It didn't stop the Tory and Labour attack dogs and their chums in the media for attacking Tim Farron for his religious beliefs though. And for switching every interview with him onto the question of his religious beliefs.
He was able in practical terms to distinguish between his religious beliefs and what was Lib Dem party policy.
He was attacked for his views (and voting record) on public policy:
The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he regrets telling people he did not believe gay sex was a sin when he was forced to clarify his position during the election campaign. The MP said he had felt “isolated” and under pressure from his party to say gay sex was not sinful, suggesting he ended up misleading the public about his views.
If a politician has deeply held religious beliefs that are unsupported in a broadly liberal largely secular democracy they have a tricky path to tread. I don’t envy them but at some point they have to choose what’s more important to them.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
I posted a similar thought the other day. There does seem to be a lot of Penny/Kemi-esque projection surrounding her.
- “… if the YouGov Scotland poll turns out to be harbinger rather than an outlier then I may revise my views…”
Oh look! Second post-resignation poll in a row with SNP well above that YouGov level (which was 38% incidentally, not the 29% shouted out in the PB piece.)
Funny how neither the Savanta (SNP 42%) nor this Survation poll got reported by PB. I thought this was meant to be a service for punters?
The SNP remain in a strong position in our 1st poll that has fieldwork conducted after Nicola Sturgeon’s surprise resignation last week. At 43% the party would be just 2% shy of their solid 2019 Westminster showing.
That is before the Labour attack machine lays into Kate Forbes as an anti abortion member of an anti homosexual marriage church, if as is likely she succeeds Sturgeon as FM
Wrong. On the new boundaries SLab would gain just 5 SNP seats, balanced out by the SNP gaining 4 SCon seats. The British Assimilationist parties would still be floundering:
SNP 47 seats (-1) Assimilationists 10 seats (+1)
As for your Forbes prediction: duly screenshotted.
Forbes is an interesting one. There is some risk to being devoutly religious in politics in nations as secular as ours. Tim Farron being the obvious example.
My own Scottish ancestors were Free Presbyterian ministers, and it is still part of the family culture. It is one thing that would prevent me from standing for election myself.
Some enterprising journo should ask Forbes what her views are on evolution.
She could just say she believes that a benign, creative force called God made the earth, but whether he did so over seven 24 hour days or over millennia of evolution is more information than she has access to. I think it's fair enough if you support gay marriage to be concerned about the possibility of her opposing it, but it is a stretch to say her very belief in God is a liability. Theresa May was a Churchgoer. Rishi Sunak is a practising Hindu - are you recommending he be quizzed on hinduism's creation myths?
As an engineer, “Intelligent Design” is an insult to God. Look at the human eye - it’s utterly crap and requires a huge amount of processing to make the images usable.
Plus the idea that God kicked off the universe x billions years ago, and played a trillion gazillion bank snooker shot, knowing that humans would appear at the end of that is way, way cooler.
It works though. And surely if it's so awful, it's an argument against millions of years of evolutionary development too?
Evolution works on the basis of patching repeatedly to improve performance. Radical redesign from the top can’t happen.
Hence the human eye - millions of years of bodges to the original photoreceptors.
That's why evolution is so good. It ensures that we have exactly what we need to survive. Other animals may have better eyesight than us, but we (and they) have the eyesight we need. That aligns perfectly with the creative design theory too. However we got here, we're the right design.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
It didn't stop the Tory and Labour attack dogs and their chums in the media for attacking Tim Farron for his religious beliefs though. And for switching every interview with him onto the question of his religious beliefs.
He was able in practical terms to distinguish between his religious beliefs and what was Lib Dem party policy.
He was attacked for his views (and voting record) on public policy:
The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he regrets telling people he did not believe gay sex was a sin when he was forced to clarify his position during the election campaign. The MP said he had felt “isolated” and under pressure from his party to say gay sex was not sinful, suggesting he ended up misleading the public about his views.
If a politician has deeply held religious beliefs that are unsupported in a broadly liberal largely secular democracy they have a tricky path to tread. I don’t envy them but at some point they have to choose what’s more important to them.
You can’t be a Lib Dem and take his view . So he’s trying to now say he wished he had been true to himself so basically telling gay people they’re sinners ! People don’t appreciate being judged and this is why I have a low opinion of most religions .
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the DREADED 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
Would anyone want to have a beer with you, tho?
I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm
it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie
And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse
- “… if the YouGov Scotland poll turns out to be harbinger rather than an outlier then I may revise my views…”
Oh look! Second post-resignation poll in a row with SNP well above that YouGov level (which was 38% incidentally, not the 29% shouted out in the PB piece.)
Funny how neither the Savanta (SNP 42%) nor this Survation poll got reported by PB. I thought this was meant to be a service for punters?
The SNP remain in a strong position in our 1st poll that has fieldwork conducted after Nicola Sturgeon’s surprise resignation last week. At 43% the party would be just 2% shy of their solid 2019 Westminster showing.
That is before the Labour attack machine lays into Kate Forbes as an anti abortion member of an anti homosexual marriage church, if as is likely she succeeds Sturgeon as FM
Wrong. On the new boundaries SLab would gain just 5 SNP seats, balanced out by the SNP gaining 4 SCon seats. The British Assimilationist parties would still be floundering:
SNP 47 seats (-1) Assimilationists 10 seats (+1)
As for your Forbes prediction: duly screenshotted.
Forbes is an interesting one. There is some risk to being devoutly religious in politics in nations as secular as ours. Tim Farron being the obvious example.
My own Scottish ancestors were Free Presbyterian ministers, and it is still part of the family culture. It is one thing that would prevent me from standing for election myself.
Some enterprising journo should ask Forbes what her views are on evolution.
She could just say she believes that a benign, creative force called God made the earth, but whether he did so over seven 24 hour days or over millennia of evolution is more information than she has access to. I think it's fair enough if you support gay marriage to be concerned about the possibility of her opposing it, but it is a stretch to say her very belief in God is a liability. Theresa May was a Churchgoer. Rishi Sunak is a practising Hindu - are you recommending he be quizzed on hinduism's creation myths?
As an engineer, “Intelligent Design” is an insult to God. Look at the human eye - it’s utterly crap and requires a huge amount of processing to make the images usable.
Plus the idea that God kicked off the universe x billions years ago, and played a trillion gazillion bank snooker shot, knowing that humans would appear at the end of that is way, way cooler.
It works though. And surely if it's so awful, it's an argument against millions of years of evolutionary development too?
Evolution works on the basis of patching repeatedly to improve performance. Radical redesign from the top can’t happen.
Hence the human eye - millions of years of bodges to the original photoreceptors.
That's why evolution is so good. It ensures that we have exactly what we need to survive. Other animals may have better eyesight than us, but we (and they) have the eyesight we need. That aligns perfectly with the creative design theory too. However we got here, we're the right design.
Err, no
Quite so. The mammalian eye is a fine example of bodge - the light has to pass tyhrough the nervous network to the retina, because of a historical accident of early evolution. Cephalopods have similar eyes eith lenses etc except that the nerves are behind the retina and don't get in the way.
And look at the mammalian dentition. Only two generations of teeth, because apparently the original mammals were so small and short-lived that the genetic ability to grow teeth indefinitely was switched off for good. Hence the weird contrivances in large herbivores such as sheep and elephants to try and make the best of it. Dinosaurs did a much better job.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
Has Blackford ever taken a position on gay marriage ? Religious faith is irrelevant if it doesn't impact political stances. How are people judging the two in that point ? (I'm singularly uninformed on the detail if Scottish politics.)
Biden has always done a good job of swerving this problem on abortion.
That was pretty well my point. Biden, despite the teachings of his church, for example led on gay marriage - against the then opposition of his President.
I’m in no position to judge Forbes, as I know almost nothing about her, but the objection to her appears to be that her politics is rather more swayed by her beliefs.
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the dreaded 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
I have had the pleasure of “having a beer with him”, except it was a glass of English sparkling and it was with dozens of other people at the drinks reception after Labour’s business conference.
As far as I can tell he was as others describe. Normal professional dad type. Sort of person I’d ask to act as witness for my mortgage application.
He vaguely radiated the aura of power but I would say purely by dint of his position, not through any superhuman charisma.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
I posted a similar thought the other day. There does seem to be a lot of Penny/Kemi-esque projection surrounding her.
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the DREADED 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
Would anyone want to have a beer with you, tho?
I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm
it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie
And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse
Also killed 2m people
Neville Chamberlain said that while he hated to admit it he found Hitler a very personable chap.
It seems that the GRA stuff may not be the all consuming obsession of voters that the all consumed obsessives think it is.
I think most would agree, so why is Forbe's Christianity causing SNP figures to threaten to flounce?
It’s certainly got lots of tabloids and ALBA supporters saying it’s causing SNP figures threatening to flounce, not necessarily the same thing.
Interesting point is that it appears Sturgeon is backing Humza Useless, her pets are out this morning punting him big time. Surely unless her and Peter are counting the votes, she cannot believe he has even a remote hope. Also why not promoting her pet Macbeth who has always been groomed as her successor, skeletons must be rattling in the cupboards right enough.
No idea who Sturgeon supports. Weirdly Eck (among many others) has been far more vocal on who should lead the SNP than Nicola.
She is far more sneaky TUD, she will as usual rig it behind the scenes via acolytes and other methods rather than give an opinion in public , give Salmond his dues in that he at least is up and front about what he supports and wants independence.
I guess I'm one of the few on here who will actually have a vote, so I promise faithfully to let everyone know when the fix is in, whether it's Murrell money or Sturgeon boot boys coming round.
You will never know TUD, it will be done in the Magpie residence and evidence shredded or deleted prior to result. Will be many "I do not recall " moments assuming certain people are still at liberty. Please promise you will not vote Macbeth or Humza Useless.
Haven't decided yet (& we still don't have all the runners & riders), still to work out which will cause maximum annoyance
TUD, If I was daft enough to fund the Murrell's I woudl be going for either Forbes or Regan , Regan favourite as she has at least shown she is for independence. They do not have much competition if a fair contest for sure. It needs a big clear out of clan and the Greens booted into touch, a bonfire of Imelda's pet charities who make the policy badly needed. Wonder if we will find out why she really went in such a hurry , for sure the shredders and disk cleaning would have been on overtime the week prior.
I was just amusing myself looking at BBC Scotland's newspaper summary. Pretty much all of them running on variations of 'SNP Infighting', 'Stitch up accusations', etc etc. Except The National with a big headline of 'Onwards and Upwards!'.
Which even for them seems a little 'head in the sand'.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
It seems that the GRA stuff may not be the all consuming obsession of voters that the all consumed obsessives think it is.
I think most would agree, so why is Forbe's Christianity causing SNP figures to threaten to flounce?
It’s certainly got lots of tabloids and ALBA supporters saying it’s causing SNP figures threatening to flounce, not necessarily the same thing.
Interesting point is that it appears Sturgeon is backing Humza Useless, her pets are out this morning punting him big time. Surely unless her and Peter are counting the votes, she cannot believe he has even a remote hope. Also why not promoting her pet Macbeth who has always been groomed as her successor, skeletons must be rattling in the cupboards right enough.
No idea who Sturgeon supports. Weirdly Eck (among many others) has been far more vocal on who should lead the SNP than Nicola.
She is far more sneaky TUD, she will as usual rig it behind the scenes via acolytes and other methods rather than give an opinion in public , give Salmond his dues in that he at least is up and front about what he supports and wants independence.
I guess I'm one of the few on here who will actually have a vote, so I promise faithfully to let everyone know when the fix is in, whether it's Murrell money or Sturgeon boot boys coming round.
You will never know TUD, it will be done in the Magpie residence and evidence shredded or deleted prior to result. Will be many "I do not recall " moments assuming certain people are still at liberty. Please promise you will not vote Macbeth or Humza Useless.
Haven't decided yet (& we still don't have all the runners & riders), still to work out which will cause maximum annoyance
TUD, If I was daft enough to fund the Murrell's I woudl be going for either Forbes or Regan , Regan favourite as she has at least shown she is for independence. They do not have much competition if a fair contest for sure. It needs a big clear out of clan and the Greens booted into touch, a bonfire of Imelda's pet charities who make the policy badly needed. Wonder if we will find out why she really went in such a hurry , for sure the shredders and disk cleaning would have been on overtime the week prior.
I was just amusing myself looking at BBC Scotland's newspaper summary. Pretty much all of them running on variations of 'SNP Infighting', 'Stitch up accusations', etc etc. Except The National with a big headline of 'Onwards and Upwards!'.
Which even for them seems a little 'head in the sand'.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
Has Blackford ever taken a position on gay marriage ? Religious faith is irrelevant if it doesn't impact political stances. How are people judging the two in that point ? (I'm singularly uninformed on the detail if Scottish politics.)
Has he ever taken a position on anything other than windbaggery
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
I posted a similar thought the other day. There does seem to be a lot of Penny/Kemi-esque projection surrounding her.
Yes, I agree
She’s so young she’s a blank canvas. She also looks OK, she’s smart, well educated (but not posh), so she’s this perfect space on which to draw your ideal First Minister if you’re desperate to find the new Sturgeon
We have seen how badly this projection can go wrong with Liz Truss, when everyone wanted her to be Thatcher
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
It didn't stop the Tory and Labour attack dogs and their chums in the media for attacking Tim Farron for his religious beliefs though. And for switching every interview with him onto the question of his religious beliefs.
He was able in practical terms to distinguish between his religious beliefs and what was Lib Dem party policy.
He was attacked for his views (and voting record) on public policy:
The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he regrets telling people he did not believe gay sex was a sin when he was forced to clarify his position during the election campaign. The MP said he had felt “isolated” and under pressure from his party to say gay sex was not sinful, suggesting he ended up misleading the public about his views.
If a politician has deeply held religious beliefs that are unsupported in a broadly liberal largely secular democracy they have a tricky path to tread. I don’t envy them but at some point they have to choose what’s more important to them.
You can’t be a Lib Dem and take his view . So he’s trying to now say he wished he had been true to himself so basically telling gay people they’re sinners ! People don’t appreciate being judged and this is why I have a low opinion of most religions .
Perhaps more to the point, he actually voted against banning discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.
Maybe his religious beliefs about sexual sin could be put in a box and remain a private matter, but I can't see how that stance on a matter of legislation could be acceptable to any liberal, any more than wanting racial or sex discrimination to be decriminalised would be acceptable.
In any normal workplace where I was a serious contender for promotion but was off on maternity leave and the timetable was so unnecessarily tight that it either excluded me or forced me back to work early, I might consider that discrimination. Just saying.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
Has Blackford ever taken a position on gay marriage ? Religious faith is irrelevant if it doesn't impact political stances. How are people judging the two in that point ? (I'm singularly uninformed on the detail if Scottish politics.)
Has he ever taken a position on anything other than windbaggery
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
Has Blackford ever taken a position on gay marriage ? Religious faith is irrelevant if it doesn't impact political stances. How are people judging the two in that point ? (I'm singularly uninformed on the detail if Scottish politics.)
Biden has always done a good job of swerving this problem on abortion.
That was pretty well my point. Biden, despite the teachings of his church, for example led on gay marriage - against the then opposition of his President.
I’m in no position to judge Forbes, as I know almost nothing about her, but the objection to her appears to be that her politics is rather more swayed by her beliefs.
Given she has never given any opinion based on religion it is all bollocks by morons who are just making it up
He's definitely going to be in the running and 20/1 seems excessively generous to me. His time as Justice Minister has been abysmal but so was Yousaf's and it doesn't seem to be holding him back. "By the end of the year", of course, also allows a Truss type shambles with whoever has been selected.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
Depressing David, given what is left is total dross which would be bad for Scotland big time.
In any normal workplace where I was a serious contender for promotion but was off on maternity leave and the timetable was so unnecessarily tight that it either excluded me or forced me back to work early, I might consider that discrimination. Just saying.
He's definitely going to be in the running and 20/1 seems excessively generous to me. His time as Justice Minister has been abysmal but so was Yousaf's and it doesn't seem to be holding him back. "By the end of the year", of course, also allows a Truss type shambles with whoever has been selected.
- “… if the YouGov Scotland poll turns out to be harbinger rather than an outlier then I may revise my views…”
Oh look! Second post-resignation poll in a row with SNP well above that YouGov level (which was 38% incidentally, not the 29% shouted out in the PB piece.)
Funny how neither the Savanta (SNP 42%) nor this Survation poll got reported by PB. I thought this was meant to be a service for punters?
The SNP remain in a strong position in our 1st poll that has fieldwork conducted after Nicola Sturgeon’s surprise resignation last week. At 43% the party would be just 2% shy of their solid 2019 Westminster showing.
That is before the Labour attack machine lays into Kate Forbes as an anti abortion member of an anti homosexual marriage church, if as is likely she succeeds Sturgeon as FM
Wrong. On the new boundaries SLab would gain just 5 SNP seats, balanced out by the SNP gaining 4 SCon seats. The British Assimilationist parties would still be floundering:
SNP 47 seats (-1) Assimilationists 10 seats (+1)
As for your Forbes prediction: duly screenshotted.
Forbes is an interesting one. There is some risk to being devoutly religious in politics in nations as secular as ours. Tim Farron being the obvious example.
My own Scottish ancestors were Free Presbyterian ministers, and it is still part of the family culture. It is one thing that would prevent me from standing for election myself.
Some enterprising journo should ask Forbes what her views are on evolution.
She could just say she believes that a benign, creative force called God made the earth, but whether he did so over seven 24 hour days or over millennia of evolution is more information than she has access to. I think it's fair enough if you support gay marriage to be concerned about the possibility of her opposing it, but it is a stretch to say her very belief in God is a liability. Theresa May was a Churchgoer. Rishi Sunak is a practising Hindu - are you recommending he be quizzed on hinduism's creation myths?
As an engineer, “Intelligent Design” is an insult to God. Look at the human eye - it’s utterly crap and requires a huge amount of processing to make the images usable.
Plus the idea that God kicked off the universe x billions years ago, and played a trillion gazillion bank snooker shot, knowing that humans would appear at the end of that is way, way cooler.
It works though. And surely if it's so awful, it's an argument against millions of years of evolutionary development too?
Evolution works on the basis of patching repeatedly to improve performance. Radical redesign from the top can’t happen.
Hence the human eye - millions of years of bodges to the original photoreceptors.
That's why evolution is so good. It ensures that we have exactly what we need to survive. Other animals may have better eyesight than us, but we (and they) have the eyesight we need. That aligns perfectly with the creative design theory too. However we got here, we're the right design.
Actually, it just means the design works.
A re-design from scratch could well work better. But if there is no plausible evolutionary pathway there, it’s not going to happen.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
Has Blackford ever taken a position on gay marriage ? Religious faith is irrelevant if it doesn't impact political stances. How are people judging the two in that point ? (I'm singularly uninformed on the detail if Scottish politics.)
Biden has always done a good job of swerving this problem on abortion.
That was pretty well my point. Biden, despite the teachings of his church, for example led on gay marriage - against the then opposition of his President.
I’m in no position to judge Forbes, as I know almost nothing about her, but the objection to her appears to be that her politics is rather more swayed by her beliefs.
Given she has never given any opinion based on religion it is all bollocks by morons who are just making it up
If that is the case, then fine. But you just said upthread that Blackford had never taken any position, so I’ll reserve judgment.
It seems that the GRA stuff may not be the all consuming obsession of voters that the all consumed obsessives think it is.
I think most would agree, so why is Forbe's Christianity causing SNP figures to threaten to flounce?
It’s certainly got lots of tabloids and ALBA supporters saying it’s causing SNP figures threatening to flounce, not necessarily the same thing.
Interesting point is that it appears Sturgeon is backing Humza Useless, her pets are out this morning punting him big time. Surely unless her and Peter are counting the votes, she cannot believe he has even a remote hope. Also why not promoting her pet Macbeth who has always been groomed as her successor, skeletons must be rattling in the cupboards right enough.
No idea who Sturgeon supports. Weirdly Eck (among many others) has been far more vocal on who should lead the SNP than Nicola.
She is far more sneaky TUD, she will as usual rig it behind the scenes via acolytes and other methods rather than give an opinion in public , give Salmond his dues in that he at least is up and front about what he supports and wants independence.
I guess I'm one of the few on here who will actually have a vote, so I promise faithfully to let everyone know when the fix is in, whether it's Murrell money or Sturgeon boot boys coming round.
You will never know TUD, it will be done in the Magpie residence and evidence shredded or deleted prior to result. Will be many "I do not recall " moments assuming certain people are still at liberty. Please promise you will not vote Macbeth or Humza Useless.
Haven't decided yet (& we still don't have all the runners & riders), still to work out which will cause maximum annoyance
TUD, If I was daft enough to fund the Murrell's I woudl be going for either Forbes or Regan , Regan favourite as she has at least shown she is for independence. They do not have much competition if a fair contest for sure. It needs a big clear out of clan and the Greens booted into touch, a bonfire of Imelda's pet charities who make the policy badly needed. Wonder if we will find out why she really went in such a hurry , for sure the shredders and disk cleaning would have been on overtime the week prior.
I was just amusing myself looking at BBC Scotland's newspaper summary. Pretty much all of them running on variations of 'SNP Infighting', 'Stitch up accusations', etc etc. Except The National with a big headline of 'Onwards and Upwards!'.
Which even for them seems a little 'head in the sand'.
It is not even a comic
D. C. Thomson don't produce it, that's for sure!
Its ownership is quite curious. It was born as a sister paper to the Herald and is now owned by Newsquest which in turn is owned by the American group Gannett. Newsquest publishes a huge range of publications for eccentric and niche markets of which nationalism is by no means the most peculiar.
On the human eye, I would actually say it was very well evolved for an omnivorous primate.
We have excellent colour vision for selecting vegetation, forward facing eye for stereoscopic vision for hunting, peripheral vision very sensitive to motion, alerting us to predators and useful for hunting, central vision acute enough to identify things at long distance. When fully dark adapted we can detect a single photon of light, yet our eyes also can operate in midday sun in a desert.
Sure, they fade a bit with age, but worth bearing in mind that evolution works less well on things after child rearing is done, as no biological advantage or disadvantage after that point can affect fertility, as indeed is true of other diseases of age.
If wanting a bit of improved design, look at the vertebrae. Really not great for bipedal locomotion.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
I posted a similar thought the other day. There does seem to be a lot of Penny/Kemi-esque projection surrounding her.
Yes, I agree
She’s so young she’s a blank canvas. She also looks OK, she’s smart, well educated (but not posh), so she’s this perfect space on which to draw your ideal First Minister if you’re desperate to find the new Sturgeon
We have seen how badly this projection can go wrong with Liz Truss, when everyone wanted her to be Thatcher
Also, if your issue with Sturgeon was trans, the one thing everyone knows about Forbes is that her personal beliefs on the matter are sound.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
Depressing David, given what is left is total dross which would be bad for Scotland big time.
I know. I will never vote Nationalist but I am anxious to have someone even vaguely competent as our FM, and ideally someone who appreciates the importance of reviving the Scottish economy and making us an attractive place to do invest and do business. I fear deep disappointment.
On the human eye, I would actually say it was very well evolved for an omnivorous primate.
We have excellent colour vision for selecting vegetation, forward facing eye for stereoscopic vision for hunting, peripheral vision very sensitive to motion, alerting us to predators and useful for hunting, central vision acute enough to identify things at long distance. When fully dark adapted we can detect a single photon of light, yet our eyes also can operate in midday sun in a desert.
Sure, they fade a bit with age, but worth bearing in mind that evolution works less well on things after child rearing is done, as no biological advantage or disadvantage after that point can affect fertility, as indeed is true of other diseases of age.
If wanting a bit of improved design, look at the vertebrae. Really not great for bipedal locomotion.
Strictly speaking, one might differ on para 2 - there is an important role to play in helping one's children, at least in hominids and related primates - hence the evolution of the granny at an age when it pays off more to help your daughters than try and have more children at an age when they are likely to be orphaned. But that is more to do with the timing of menopause itself.
On the human eye, I would actually say it was very well evolved for an omnivorous primate.
We have excellent colour vision for selecting vegetation, forward facing eye for stereoscopic vision for hunting, peripheral vision very sensitive to motion, alerting us to predators and useful for hunting, central vision acute enough to identify things at long distance. When fully dark adapted we can detect a single photon of light, yet our eyes also can operate in midday sun in a desert.
Sure, they fade a bit with age, but worth bearing in mind that evolution works less well on things after child rearing is done, as no biological advantage or disadvantage after that point can affect fertility, as indeed is true of other diseases of age.
If wanting a bit of improved design, look at the vertebrae. Really not great for bipedal locomotion.
Strictly speaking, one might differ on para 2 - there is an important role to play in helping one's children, at least in hominids and related primates - hence the evolution of the granny at an age when it pays off more to help your daughters than try and have more children at an age when they are likely to be orphaned. But that is more to do with the timing of menopause itself.
Hence I said "when child rearing is done" which would be 15 years or so after fertility is done.
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the dreaded 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
I have had the pleasure of “having a beer with him”, except it was a glass of English sparkling and it was with dozens of other people at the drinks reception after Labour’s business conference.
As far as I can tell he was as others describe. Normal professional dad type. Sort of person I’d ask to act as witness for my mortgage application.
He vaguely radiated the aura of power but I would say purely by dint of his position, not through any superhuman charisma.
I had lunch in rural Essex in the summer of 2021 with a retired but once extremely senior judge. We had wonderful new asparagus with hollandaise, but I digress
Very nice chap. He said Keir Starmer was the smartest. most impressive lawyer he’d ever had in his court
I’m no Labourite so I offer this anecdote with perfect neutrality
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the DREADED 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
Would anyone want to have a beer with you, tho?
I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm
it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie
And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse Also killed 2m people
Neville Chamberlain said that while he hated to admit it he found Hitler a very personable chap.
The real reason for Hitler being near-vegetarian was apparently, flatulence.
When he ate meat (and he occasionally did, with favourite pork dishes) he’d let rip like a Messerschmitt ME 163.
It seems that the GRA stuff may not be the all consuming obsession of voters that the all consumed obsessives think it is.
I think most would agree, so why is Forbe's Christianity causing SNP figures to threaten to flounce?
It’s certainly got lots of tabloids and ALBA supporters saying it’s causing SNP figures threatening to flounce, not necessarily the same thing.
Interesting point is that it appears Sturgeon is backing Humza Useless, her pets are out this morning punting him big time. Surely unless her and Peter are counting the votes, she cannot believe he has even a remote hope. Also why not promoting her pet Macbeth who has always been groomed as her successor, skeletons must be rattling in the cupboards right enough.
No idea who Sturgeon supports. Weirdly Eck (among many others) has been far more vocal on who should lead the SNP than Nicola.
She is far more sneaky TUD, she will as usual rig it behind the scenes via acolytes and other methods rather than give an opinion in public , give Salmond his dues in that he at least is up and front about what he supports and wants independence.
I guess I'm one of the few on here who will actually have a vote, so I promise faithfully to let everyone know when the fix is in, whether it's Murrell money or Sturgeon boot boys coming round.
You will never know TUD, it will be done in the Magpie residence and evidence shredded or deleted prior to result. Will be many "I do not recall " moments assuming certain people are still at liberty. Please promise you will not vote Macbeth or Humza Useless.
Haven't decided yet (& we still don't have all the runners & riders), still to work out which will cause maximum annoyance
TUD, If I was daft enough to fund the Murrell's I woudl be going for either Forbes or Regan , Regan favourite as she has at least shown she is for independence. They do not have much competition if a fair contest for sure. It needs a big clear out of clan and the Greens booted into touch, a bonfire of Imelda's pet charities who make the policy badly needed. Wonder if we will find out why she really went in such a hurry , for sure the shredders and disk cleaning would have been on overtime the week prior.
I was just amusing myself looking at BBC Scotland's newspaper summary. Pretty much all of them running on variations of 'SNP Infighting', 'Stitch up accusations', etc etc. Except The National with a big headline of 'Onwards and Upwards!'.
Which even for them seems a little 'head in the sand'.
It is not even a comic
D. C. Thomson don't produce it, that's for sure!
Its ownership is quite curious. It was born as a sister paper to the Herald and is now owned by Newsquest which in turn is owned by the American group Gannett. Newsquest publishes a huge range of publications for eccentric and niche markets of which nationalism is by no means the most peculiar.
The National did, of course,arise when the Herald was swerved from middle of the road to full on British nationalist, as indeed you imply. The fall in circulation was so great that they had to try and bodge up a solution in the way of an independista paper, hence the N.
But as I think we have discussed before, I'd much rather have the old Scotsman and Herald back ...
On the human eye, I would actually say it was very well evolved for an omnivorous primate.
We have excellent colour vision for selecting vegetation, forward facing eye for stereoscopic vision for hunting, peripheral vision very sensitive to motion, alerting us to predators and useful for hunting, central vision acute enough to identify things at long distance. When fully dark adapted we can detect a single photon of light, yet our eyes also can operate in midday sun in a desert.
Sure, they fade a bit with age, but worth bearing in mind that evolution works less well on things after child rearing is done, as no biological advantage or disadvantage after that point can affect fertility, as indeed is true of other diseases of age.
If wanting a bit of improved design, look at the vertebrae. Really not great for bipedal locomotion.
Wired backwards, with a resulting blind spot in the middle of the sensor?
On the human eye, I would actually say it was very well evolved for an omnivorous primate.
We have excellent colour vision for selecting vegetation, forward facing eye for stereoscopic vision for hunting, peripheral vision very sensitive to motion, alerting us to predators and useful for hunting, central vision acute enough to identify things at long distance. When fully dark adapted we can detect a single photon of light, yet our eyes also can operate in midday sun in a desert.
Sure, they fade a bit with age, but worth bearing in mind that evolution works less well on things after child rearing is done, as no biological advantage or disadvantage after that point can affect fertility, as indeed is true of other diseases of age.
If wanting a bit of improved design, look at the vertebrae. Really not great for bipedal locomotion.
Also, put the clitoris INSIDE the vagina, so orgasms during and because of coition are the norm. A foolish design flaw
On the human eye, I would actually say it was very well evolved for an omnivorous primate.
We have excellent colour vision for selecting vegetation, forward facing eye for stereoscopic vision for hunting, peripheral vision very sensitive to motion, alerting us to predators and useful for hunting, central vision acute enough to identify things at long distance. When fully dark adapted we can detect a single photon of light, yet our eyes also can operate in midday sun in a desert.
Sure, they fade a bit with age, but worth bearing in mind that evolution works less well on things after child rearing is done, as no biological advantage or disadvantage after that point can affect fertility, as indeed is true of other diseases of age.
If wanting a bit of improved design, look at the vertebrae. Really not great for bipedal locomotion.
Strictly speaking, one might differ on para 2 - there is an important role to play in helping one's children, at least in hominids and related primates - hence the evolution of the granny at an age when it pays off more to help your daughters than try and have more children at an age when they are likely to be orphaned. But that is more to do with the timing of menopause itself.
Elderly individuals unable to fully participate in food gathering might be an evolutionary advantage in the context of developing social groups, though.
"I feel confident in my Labour largest party in a hung parliament position, if the YouGov Scotland poll turns out to be harbinger rather than an outlier then I may revise my views but Starmer needs to up his game." @TSE
Good morning all.
1. Starmer doesn't need to up his game
2. It's good that he is no Blair. Boris and Cameron have made that kind of politician toxic.
3. Starmer has expunged Corbyn's anti-semitic legacy
4. Labour don't need Scotland but they are recovering well there.
5. Believe the polls
6. I am not merely confident, I am certain, that Labour will win a thumping great majority. We have witnessed a sea change.
7. But you are right. This won't be 1997 Redux. It will be far, far, worse for the tories. In 1997 the economy was in great shape. Now it has tanked. Everyone I know is STILL talking about that Liz Truss budget and Labour will continue to remind us of it. The tories have done 1000x worse in the last 4 years than they did back then on every level, including corruption and sleaze. Which is really saying something.
They are in for an absolute pounding. 100-150 seats but my latest reckoning is that they may go sub 100.
Did you hear that dreadful Rishi Sunak speech in Munich? OMFG. He sounds like a precocious 14 year old reading his script (the teacher gave it a C+) in front of the class, very poorly. Really eye-wateringly poorly. This man is going to get savaged during the election campaign.
The 100-150 band ought to be possible with a half-decent leader. But the Tories don’t have a half-decent leader.
I watched and it was fine and he answered questions well.
Compared to Starmer, whose speeches making watching paint dry exciting, Sunak is a perfectly good speaker
They’re both reasonable but not electrifying speakers.
In recent* years Blair, Hague, Cameron, Miliband, May and Johnson were all good orators. Brown, Howard, Corbyn, Starmer and Sunak mediocre. Truss and IDS awful. Kinnock was world class.
Corbyn was overrated as a speaker. His fans loved him but I always felt his oratory was awkward and disjointed.
*as I get older “recent” takes on a more extended meaning.
Hague, Cameron, Blair and Kinnock were by far the best speakers and orators of the last 40 years amongst the main party leaders. Though 2 of them won, 2 of them also lost so great oratory is not enough to win general elections.
Boris was more amusing than great speaker
I agree with all of that. I would be interested in your view of who would have made a good PM (that is not the politics, but the day to day management and dealing with the issues that turn up).
My view is that Michael Howard would have been competent and I think Hague would have been rather good, even though I disagree with their politics. I think Kinnock and IDS would have been poor. This is all a bit unfair of me as it is all a gut feeling.
My feeling about Liberals is most of those from my younger days were exceptionally good eg Kirkwood, Pardue, Carlile, Penhaligan, but the current lot are pretty weak.
Howard would have been a competent PM yes. Probably similar to his Australian namesake John Howard
It's amazing how the same lies echo from genocidal regimes throughout history. What the Nazis told about England in the 1940s, the Putinists are telling about NATO today.
On the human eye, I would actually say it was very well evolved for an omnivorous primate.
We have excellent colour vision for selecting vegetation, forward facing eye for stereoscopic vision for hunting, peripheral vision very sensitive to motion, alerting us to predators and useful for hunting, central vision acute enough to identify things at long distance. When fully dark adapted we can detect a single photon of light, yet our eyes also can operate in midday sun in a desert.
Sure, they fade a bit with age, but worth bearing in mind that evolution works less well on things after child rearing is done, as no biological advantage or disadvantage after that point can affect fertility, as indeed is true of other diseases of age.
If wanting a bit of improved design, look at the vertebrae. Really not great for bipedal locomotion.
Strictly speaking, one might differ on para 2 - there is an important role to play in helping one's children, at least in hominids and related primates - hence the evolution of the granny at an age when it pays off more to help your daughters than try and have more children at an age when they are likely to be orphaned. But that is more to do with the timing of menopause itself.
Elderly individuals unable to fully participate in food gathering might be an evolutionary advantage in the context of developing social groups, though.
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the DREADED 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
Would anyone want to have a beer with you, tho?
I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm
it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie
And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse Also killed 2m people
Neville Chamberlain said that while he hated to admit it he found Hitler a very personable chap.
The real reason for Hitler being near-vegetarian was apparently, flatulence.
When he ate meat (and he occasionally did, with favourite pork dishes) he’d let rip like a Messerschmitt ME 163.
And Stalin was the life and soul of the party as a young, murderous gangster.
He kept up the partying all his life - late night drinking sessions.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense. And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
The NI Protocol which the government is trying to improve was proposed and negotiated by Boris Johnson. He lied about what it meant (checks on the GB/NI border) and is now reportedly arguing that it must be abolished altogether. Even by Johnson's standards this is pure hypocrisy.
I don't think that is what Boris is arguing. The Northern Ireland bill in the Lords would allow the UK Government to nullify parts of the protocol, which he argues would give the UK the upper hand in the negotiations on the agreement. I am not sure if he is right, but having negotiated with the EU from a position of weakness before, it's understandable that he does not expect the best results for the UK if we keep doing it.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense. And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
Both are right wing policies in the Scottish context. Look at the parties which support them and which don't.
It's amazing how the same lies echo from genocidal regimes throughout history. What the Nazis told about England in the 1940s, the Putinists are telling about NATO today.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense. And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
Both are right wing policies in the Scottish context. Look at the parties which support them and which don't.
If supporting the UK is seen as right wing, then it's because Labour have unfortunately not made a convincing enough left wing case for the union. What is left wing or right wing should not be dictated by the SNP.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
They both appear to be far more talented than the average SNP MSP. But then Scottish Labour found that appointing the most intelligence member of their cabinet didn't exactly end well when Wendy Alexander took the job on.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
They both appear to be far more talented than the average SNP MSP. But then Scottish Labour found that appointing the most intelligence member of their cabinet didn't exactly end well when Wendy Alexander took the job on.
True, there is a lot more to politics than being bright, as Rishi is demonstrating all too clearly south of the border. Wendy Alexander was indeed bright but also demonstrated the point.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense. And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
Both are right wing policies in the Scottish context. Look at the parties which support them and which don't.
If supporting the UK is seen as right wing, then it's because Labour have unfortunately not made a convincing enough left wing case for the union. What is left wing or right wing should not be dictated by the SNP.
Not really up to any one party, including Labour. If the current incarnation of Labour are running scared of the word left, they have to take the consequences.
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the DREADED 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
Would anyone want to have a beer with you, tho?
I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm
it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie
And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse Also killed 2m people
Neville Chamberlain said that while he hated to admit it he found Hitler a very personable chap.
The real reason for Hitler being near-vegetarian was apparently, flatulence.
When he ate meat (and he occasionally did, with favourite pork dishes) he’d let rip like a Messerschmitt ME 163.
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the DREADED 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
Would anyone want to have a beer with you, tho?
I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm
it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie
And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse Also killed 2m people
Neville Chamberlain said that while he hated to admit it he found Hitler a very personable chap.
The real reason for Hitler being near-vegetarian was apparently, flatulence.
When he ate meat (and he occasionally did, with favourite pork dishes) he’d let rip like a Messerschmitt ME 163.
Really? What's your source for that? Goebbels said Hitler was 'a convinced vegetarian on principle.'
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
It didn't stop the Tory and Labour attack dogs and their chums in the media for attacking Tim Farron for his religious beliefs though. And for switching every interview with him onto the question of his religious beliefs.
He was able in practical terms to distinguish between his religious beliefs and what was Lib Dem party policy.
He was attacked for his views (and voting record) on public policy:
The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he regrets telling people he did not believe gay sex was a sin when he was forced to clarify his position during the election campaign. The MP said he had felt “isolated” and under pressure from his party to say gay sex was not sinful, suggesting he ended up misleading the public about his views.
If a politician has deeply held religious beliefs that are unsupported in a broadly liberal largely secular democracy they have a tricky path to tread. I don’t envy them but at some point they have to choose what’s more important to them.
You can’t be a Lib Dem and take his view . So he’s trying to now say he wished he had been true to himself so basically telling gay people they’re sinners ! People don’t appreciate being judged and this is why I have a low opinion of most religions .
Of course homosexuales are sinners. As are adulterers, liars and lots of others. But only if you are a follower of the hard-line religions - Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Mohamedanism and extreme Prostestantism. Non-religious people cannot really talk about "sin". The closest we can get to it is something that is unethical.
For religious people, Boris Johnson is quite clearly a sinner. For my part, I hold him to be corrupt, incompetent and thoroughly unworthy of holding any office at all, let alone high office. But I have never described him as a sinner.
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the DREADED 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
Would anyone want to have a beer with you, tho?
I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm
it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie
And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse Also killed 2m people
Neville Chamberlain said that while he hated to admit it he found Hitler a very personable chap.
The real reason for Hitler being near-vegetarian was apparently, flatulence.
When he ate meat (and he occasionally did, with favourite pork dishes) he’d let rip like a Messerschmitt ME 163.
Really? What's your source for that? Goebbels said Hitler was 'a convinced vegetarian on principle.'
On the human eye, I would actually say it was very well evolved for an omnivorous primate.
We have excellent colour vision for selecting vegetation, forward facing eye for stereoscopic vision for hunting, peripheral vision very sensitive to motion, alerting us to predators and useful for hunting, central vision acute enough to identify things at long distance. When fully dark adapted we can detect a single photon of light, yet our eyes also can operate in midday sun in a desert.
Sure, they fade a bit with age, but worth bearing in mind that evolution works less well on things after child rearing is done, as no biological advantage or disadvantage after that point can affect fertility, as indeed is true of other diseases of age.
If wanting a bit of improved design, look at the vertebrae. Really not great for bipedal locomotion.
Wired backwards, with a resulting blind spot in the middle of the sensor?
The physiological blind spot is 15° temporal in each eye, so not central in the sensor. Additionally each is covered by the other eyes field of vision, so with both eyes functioning normally not a problem at all.
The high turnover of the photo-receptors at the level of ambient light for mammals is such that the metabolic need for nutrition via choroid and pigment epithelium makes the "backward wiring" eminently sensible.
It may well be that the eyes of higher molluscs are better adapted to their environment, but I am far from convinced that it would be beneficial in ours.
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the DREADED 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
Would anyone want to have a beer with you, tho?
I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm
it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie
And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse Also killed 2m people
Neville Chamberlain said that while he hated to admit it he found Hitler a very personable chap.
The real reason for Hitler being near-vegetarian was apparently, flatulence.
When he ate meat (and he occasionally did, with favourite pork dishes) he’d let rip like a Messerschmitt ME 163.
Really? What's your source for that? Goebbels said Hitler was 'a convinced vegetarian on principle.'
And Goebbels never lied.
Just kidding.
He didn't usually lie in his diaries, which are what I was quoting from.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
It didn't stop the Tory and Labour attack dogs and their chums in the media for attacking Tim Farron for his religious beliefs though. And for switching every interview with him onto the question of his religious beliefs.
He was able in practical terms to distinguish between his religious beliefs and what was Lib Dem party policy.
He was attacked for his views (and voting record) on public policy:
The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he regrets telling people he did not believe gay sex was a sin when he was forced to clarify his position during the election campaign. The MP said he had felt “isolated” and under pressure from his party to say gay sex was not sinful, suggesting he ended up misleading the public about his views.
If a politician has deeply held religious beliefs that are unsupported in a broadly liberal largely secular democracy they have a tricky path to tread. I don’t envy them but at some point they have to choose what’s more important to them.
You can’t be a Lib Dem and take his view . So he’s trying to now say he wished he had been true to himself so basically telling gay people they’re sinners ! People don’t appreciate being judged and this is why I have a low opinion of most religions .
Of course homosexuales are sinners. As are adulterers, liars and lots of others. But only if you are a follower of the hard-line religions - Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Mohamedanism and extreme Prostestantism. Non-religious people cannot really talk about "sin". The closest we can get to it is something that is unethical.
For religious people, Boris Johnson is quite clearly a sinner. For my part, I hold him to be corrupt, incompetent and thoroughly unworthy of holding any office at all, let alone high office. But I have never described him as a sinner.
In most Christian theology we are all born in sin, and therefore sinners in need of salvation.
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the DREADED 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
Would anyone want to have a beer with you, tho?
I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm
it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie
And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse Also killed 2m people
Neville Chamberlain said that while he hated to admit it he found Hitler a very personable chap.
The real reason for Hitler being near-vegetarian was apparently, flatulence.
When he ate meat (and he occasionally did, with favourite pork dishes) he’d let rip like a Messerschmitt ME 163.
Really? What's your source for that? Goebbels said Hitler was 'a convinced vegetarian on principle.'
And Goebbels never lied.
Just kidding.
He didn't usually lie in his diaries, which are what I was quoting from.
Goebbels was frequently quoted as saying that he was thinking of history in terms of presenting the Nazi record. Bullshitting on the historical record (his diary) would have fit that perfectly.
- “… if the YouGov Scotland poll turns out to be harbinger rather than an outlier then I may revise my views…”
Oh look! Second post-resignation poll in a row with SNP well above that YouGov level (which was 38% incidentally, not the 29% shouted out in the PB piece.)
Funny how neither the Savanta (SNP 42%) nor this Survation poll got reported by PB. I thought this was meant to be a service for punters?
The SNP remain in a strong position in our 1st poll that has fieldwork conducted after Nicola Sturgeon’s surprise resignation last week. At 43% the party would be just 2% shy of their solid 2019 Westminster showing.
That is before the Labour attack machine lays into Kate Forbes as an anti abortion member of an anti homosexual marriage church, if as is likely she succeeds Sturgeon as FM
Wrong. On the new boundaries SLab would gain just 5 SNP seats, balanced out by the SNP gaining 4 SCon seats. The British Assimilationist parties would still be floundering:
SNP 47 seats (-1) Assimilationists 10 seats (+1)
As for your Forbes prediction: duly screenshotted.
Forbes is an interesting one. There is some risk to being devoutly religious in politics in nations as secular as ours. Tim Farron being the obvious example.
My own Scottish ancestors were Free Presbyterian ministers, and it is still part of the family culture. It is one thing that would prevent me from standing for election myself.
Tim Farron was a bit hard done by but he made a rod for his own back by dissembling and then lying about it.
I think this is a little harsh on Farron, the core of whose problem was the public anguish over trying to avoid telling a lie about his religious beliefs (he had a couple of years to formulate a decent answer, and that he didn't is pretty poor but there we are).
It's easy to lie about political beliefs and happens all the time from politicians of all parties. You might privately believe that Britain would be better off in the Euro, or that the monarchy is a bit daft, or that the Rwanda policy is a gimmick. But you don't say that asked the direct question.
The problem with religious beliefs is that, confronted with certain questions, you're not just a pragmatist realising that telling the truth about your views would harm your ability to get anyone done... you're suddenly Peter denying Christ three times. That does make it incredibly difficult for certain religious politicians to get on - and perhaps it should too.
I think this attempt falls at the first hurdle, to be honest. Yes, people do little lies all the time, but if he was facing such anguish over telling the lie he could have just, you know, not lied.
He found the political circumstance of being leader incompatible with telling the truth about his own beliefs. He undoubtedly found that a hard situation to be in, and as a moral person he is remorseful about the choice he made. But he still made it.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
Ian Blackford was not the First Minister of Scotland. Being a widely-derided gobshite in a three piece twice a week is a very different thing to running a government.
He was party leader in Westminster - a position not without responsibility - including removing some of their talent to the back benches because they thought for themselves and wouldn’t toe the Sturgeon line. Until that Cherry tweet I wasn’t aware of his faith - it never seemed to be brought up.
Politicians should be entitled to a personal faith - only if it intrudes into public policy should it become an issue. As the first Queen Elizabeth said I would not open windows into men's souls
Well, she said that but she did still execute a lot of people.
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the DREADED 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
Would anyone want to have a beer with you, tho?
I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm
it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie
And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse Also killed 2m people
Neville Chamberlain said that while he hated to admit it he found Hitler a very personable chap.
The real reason for Hitler being near-vegetarian was apparently, flatulence.
When he ate meat (and he occasionally did, with favourite pork dishes) he’d let rip like a Messerschmitt ME 163.
Really? What's your source for that? Goebbels said Hitler was 'a convinced vegetarian on principle.'
And Goebbels never lied.
Just kidding.
He didn't usually lie in his diaries, which are what I was quoting from.
Goebbels was frequently quoted as saying that he was thinking of history in terms of presenting the Nazi record. Bullshitting on the historical record (his diary) would have fit that perfectly.
But so far as his statements in there can be checked, he didn't.
If Starmer has a problem, and I don't think it's a major one, it's that he needs to demonstrate his real personality; if such a thing exits. The small target, managerial, at-least-we're-not-the-tories policy lite strategy is effective but it doesn't really give you a sense of what SKS is like. I've never met Sunak but I know exactly what he'd be like if I encountered him in person. A pathetic boring little dweeb who's never heard of Rodrigo Moreno but would try to tell me about Microsoft Azure or some fucking thing. I have no idea what to expect from a personal encounter with SKS. Maybe he's a right laugh?
I've only met him once (at a campaign rally) - he seemed a fairly typical middle-aged, middle-class pleasant man with above-average capacity to focus. I dount if there is a rollicking jollly type underneath, but he's not nerdish or boring.
He is genuinely into football instead of busking it like most politicians and he represented the McLibel Two for free so that's two ticks from me even though Labour exists only manage capitalism rather than destroy it.
There's a steely professionalism about Keir Starmer. Many people may not warm to it but I've always admired this quality (steely professionalism) and for me he easily passes the DREADED 'like to have a beer with' test. He'd be a civil, calm, intelligent, reassuring companion for the hour or so it takes to sip a couple of pints, and I'd leave feeling absolutely fine. It's been a long time since I can say that about one of the main party leaders.
Would anyone want to have a beer with you, tho?
I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm
it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie
And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse
Also killed 2m people
@kinabalu really has you rattled, doesn't he? I don't know why.
I wish people would stop attacking @_KateForbes for her religious faith. She’s never shown any inclination to roll back rights as a matter of govt policy.I don’t recall any fuss about Ian Blackford’s membership of the same church. It is rank #misogyny
It didn't stop the Tory and Labour attack dogs and their chums in the media for attacking Tim Farron for his religious beliefs though. And for switching every interview with him onto the question of his religious beliefs.
He was able in practical terms to distinguish between his religious beliefs and what was Lib Dem party policy.
He was attacked for his views (and voting record) on public policy:
The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he regrets telling people he did not believe gay sex was a sin when he was forced to clarify his position during the election campaign. The MP said he had felt “isolated” and under pressure from his party to say gay sex was not sinful, suggesting he ended up misleading the public about his views.
If a politician has deeply held religious beliefs that are unsupported in a broadly liberal largely secular democracy they have a tricky path to tread. I don’t envy them but at some point they have to choose what’s more important to them.
You can’t be a Lib Dem and take his view . So he’s trying to now say he wished he had been true to himself so basically telling gay people they’re sinners ! People don’t appreciate being judged and this is why I have a low opinion of most religions .
Of course homosexuales are sinners. As are adulterers, liars and lots of others. But only if you are a follower of the hard-line religions - Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Mohamedanism and extreme Prostestantism. Non-religious people cannot really talk about "sin". The closest we can get to it is something that is unethical.
For religious people, Boris Johnson is quite clearly a sinner. For my part, I hold him to be corrupt, incompetent and thoroughly unworthy of holding any office at all, let alone high office. But I have never described him as a sinner.
In most Christian theology we are all born in sin, and therefore sinners in need of salvation.
How convenient - even if someone is a very good person, they still need the intercession of some church or preacher to 'save' them.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense. And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
Both are right wing policies in the Scottish context. Look at the parties which support them and which don't.
But surely someone could be right wing and an independence supporter? There certainly are in other countries.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense. And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
It was a Labour government that set in motion the British Bomb at a time when Britain truly was broke. Churchill was astonished at the progress when he resumed office.
We’ve got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it.
Honestly, this is not that much of a drop - thank goodness it was enough in some tight races.
How much were election-denying Republican candidates punished in the 2022 midterms? @janetmalzahn and I put together the data and find they suffered roughly a 2.3 percentage-point penalty in the general election, on average.
Honestly, this is not that much of a drop - thank goodness it was enough in some tight races.
How much were election-denying Republican candidates punished in the 2022 midterms? @janetmalzahn and I put together the data and find they suffered roughly a 2.3 percentage-point penalty in the general election, on average.
It's actually deeply depressing that so many Republicans just seem indifferent to positions that completely undermine and destroy democracy itself. This is almost margin of error stuff.
Can Johnson just fxck off and let the adults try and sort this out .
It’s obvious that keeping the NI Protocol Bill if you’ve agreed a new NI Protocol looks a very bad faith move and would suggest you’re not intending to honour that new protocol .
So of course the cancer on British politics Johnson wants to stir and comes up with this ludicrous suggestion.
We can only hope that the Privileges Committee find him guilty of knowingly misleading the House and this metastasizing cancer can be removed from British politics once and for all .
Honestly, this is not that much of a drop - thank goodness it was enough in some tight races.
How much were election-denying Republican candidates punished in the 2022 midterms? @janetmalzahn and I put together the data and find they suffered roughly a 2.3 percentage-point penalty in the general election, on average.
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense. And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
It was a Labour government that set in motion the British Bomb at a time when Britain truly was broke. Churchill was astonished at the progress when he resumed office.
We’ve got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it.
Most political parties and factions, right left or centre, since the dawn of the modern age are patriotic and supportive of a strong defence. The active scepticism/opposition to the concept of national identity or patriotism is a weird outlier. And largely limited to the left in high income English speaking nations since about 1970.
50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less
The thing about Forbes is I don't really remember her saying much about anything. She's one of the two likely favourites and other than the whole "she's a bit religious" thing (which I've seen no particular manifestations of) I know the square root of nil about her, really.
She's bright, qualified as a CA, speaks reasonably well in a head Prefect sort of way and can't stand the Greens. These are tick points for me but I agree they don't give a particularly well rounded view of what she is really like as a person. Those I know who have met her state she is as nice as she appears, which might be a weakness of course.
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
Having said that, electing someone on the left would make sense if Labour are a serious threat in central Scotland. SLAB would be pretty happy if the SNP moved to the right.
Slab? They are to the *right* of the SNP, very definitely. British unionism, Brexit, nukes (the latter when you listen to who is yanking their chain at Labour HQ).
The Soviet Union believed in having a nuclear deterrent. The idea that having one is inherently right wing is nonsense. And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
It was a Labour government that set in motion the British Bomb at a time when Britain truly was broke. Churchill was astonished at the progress when he resumed office.
We’ve got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it.
Some in the Labour party bemoan that they are seen as anti-patriotic but they don't help themselves. Nato is one of our major legacies yet you wouldn't think a Labour government had been at the heart of its creation. Neither did they ever nail Thatcher for the cuts that led to the Falklands war.
Comments
Edit: esp. as Mr B has small family as well, I seem to remember it being pointedly remarked recently.
Sources indicated it could be difficult for the smaller pro-independence party to maintain a commitment to the agreement under Ms Forbes even if she adopted a pragmatic approach to governing.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23330975.greens-may-exit-snp-deal-kate-forbes-becomes-fm-prompting-election/
Joanna Cherry’s response:
They may not get the chance. The Bute House Agreement can be ended by either party. @theSNP has governed very successfully before without an outright majority. Perhaps it’s time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1627225122443501568?s=20
I’ve nominated @AshtenRegan for @theSNP leadership & I’m looking forward to an open & respectful debate about our future policy direction & #independence strategy. I really hope public televised hustings will be organised. #CourageCallsToCourage
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1627258730688532480?s=20
One had to be a bit careful though…
Politicians should be entitled to a personal faith - only if it intrudes into public policy should it become an issue. As the first Queen Elizabeth said I would not open windows into men's souls
He was able in practical terms to distinguish between his religious beliefs and what was Lib Dem party policy.
Religious faith is irrelevant if it doesn't impact political stances. How are people judging the two in that point ? (I'm singularly uninformed on the detail if Scottish politics.)
https://twitter.com/paul_lever/status/1627275676377141249?s=20
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-07-09-427-commons/mp/25361
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/whats-tim-farrons-track-record-on-lgbt-rights
And recanted his “it’s not a sin” position.
The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he regrets telling people he did not believe gay sex was a sin when he was forced to clarify his position during the election campaign.
The MP said he had felt “isolated” and under pressure from his party to say gay sex was not sinful, suggesting he ended up misleading the public about his views.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/10/tim-farron-regrets-saying-gay-sex-not-sin
If a politician has deeply held religious beliefs that are unsupported in a broadly liberal largely secular democracy they have a tricky path to tread. I don’t envy them but at some point they have to choose what’s more important to them.
O/T but just to show that some folk have a shite day (in this case the insurers, though I wonder if they will go after the lady in question)
I just can't see the party of Nicola Sturgeon going for her. Sturgeon led her party a long way to the left on a variety of issues and frustrated the more centrist, centre right independence supporters to the point they formed a break away party. The party that Nicola built seems to me to be unlikely to vote for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan. They will want someone more on the left.
I imagine one could get through 20 minutes with chat about your golf and some anecdotes of your time as a chartered accountant, but after that, hmm
it is a daft test, however. I imagine Hitler would be fucking compelling for a couple of hours of schnapps. Putin likewise, on the voddie
And everyone I know in Cambodia who has met senior Khmer Rouge figures (seriously, I have known a few) says they were very urbane and charming, highly educated in Paris, full of ideas and politesse
Also killed 2m people
And look at the mammalian dentition. Only two generations of teeth, because apparently the original mammals were so small and short-lived that the genetic ability to grow teeth indefinitely was switched off for good. Hence the weird contrivances in large herbivores such as sheep and elephants to try and make the best of it. Dinosaurs did a much better job.
Biden, despite the teachings of his church, for example led on gay marriage - against the then opposition of his President.
I’m in no position to judge Forbes, as I know almost nothing about her, but the objection to her appears to be that her politics is rather more swayed by her beliefs.
As far as I can tell he was as others describe. Normal professional dad type. Sort of person I’d ask to act as witness for my mortgage application.
He vaguely radiated the aura of power but I would say purely by dint of his position, not through any superhuman charisma.
https://twitter.com/KeithBrownSNP/status/1627285258772090882?s=20
She’s so young she’s a blank canvas. She also looks OK, she’s smart, well educated (but not posh), so she’s this perfect space on which to draw your ideal First Minister if you’re desperate to find the new Sturgeon
We have seen how badly this projection can go wrong with Liz Truss, when everyone wanted her to be Thatcher
Maybe his religious beliefs about sexual sin could be put in a box and remain a private matter, but I can't see how that stance on a matter of legislation could be acceptable to any liberal, any more than wanting racial or sex discrimination to be decriminalised would be acceptable.
https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1627243750044094464?s=20
Just asking.
A re-design from scratch could well work better. But if there is no plausible evolutionary pathway there, it’s not going to happen.
But you just said upthread that Blackford had never taken any position, so I’ll reserve judgment.
We have excellent colour vision for selecting vegetation, forward facing eye for stereoscopic vision for hunting, peripheral vision very sensitive to motion, alerting us to predators and useful for hunting, central vision acute enough to identify things at long distance. When fully dark adapted we can detect a single photon of light, yet our eyes also can operate in midday sun in a desert.
Sure, they fade a bit with age, but worth bearing in mind that evolution works less well on things after child rearing is done, as no biological advantage or disadvantage after that point can affect fertility, as indeed is true of other diseases of age.
If wanting a bit of improved design, look at the vertebrae. Really not great for bipedal locomotion.
Useful..
At @PENamerica we are alarmed at news of "hundreds of changes" to venerated works by @roald_dahl in a purported effort to scrub the books of that which might offend someone.
https://twitter.com/SuzanneNossel/status/1627066101309018112
In the US, it tends to be the right that’s more interested in actually censoring books. See, for example, the antics of DeSantis in Florida.
Very nice chap. He said Keir Starmer was the smartest. most impressive lawyer he’d ever had in his court
I’m no Labourite so I offer this anecdote with perfect neutrality
When he ate meat (and he occasionally did, with favourite pork dishes) he’d let rip like a Messerschmitt ME 163.
But as I think we have discussed before, I'd much rather have the old Scotsman and Herald back ...
https://preview.redd.it/c38ywv60w5ja1.jpg
It's amazing how the same lies echo from genocidal regimes throughout history. What the Nazis told about England in the 1940s, the Putinists are telling about NATO today.
He kept up the partying all his life - late night drinking sessions.
And believe it or not there are actual left wing people who support the continuation of the UK.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16280747.snp-rising-star-kate-forbes-made-pro-life-call-brian-souter-prayer-breakfast-event/
We Conservatives don’t have a problem with Forbes having anti abortion and anti homosexual marriage views, some of our own members still do.
However Scottish Labour certainly will and Forbes should expect a brutal SLab campaign to win back social liberals from the SNP if she becomes leader
For religious people, Boris Johnson is quite clearly a sinner. For my part, I hold him to be corrupt, incompetent and thoroughly unworthy of holding any office at all, let alone high office. But I have never described him as a sinner.
Just kidding.
The high turnover of the photo-receptors at the level of ambient light for mammals is such that the metabolic need for nutrition via choroid and pigment epithelium makes the "backward wiring" eminently sensible.
It may well be that the eyes of higher molluscs are better adapted to their environment, but I am far from convinced that it would be beneficial in ours.
He found the political circumstance of being leader incompatible with telling the truth about his own beliefs. He undoubtedly found that a hard situation to be in, and as a moral person he is remorseful about the choice he made. But he still made it.
We’ve got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it.
https://history.blog.gov.uk/2022/01/07/whats-the-context-the-decision-to-build-a-british-atomic-bomb-8-january-1947/
How much were election-denying Republican candidates punished in the 2022 midterms? @janetmalzahn and I put together the data and find they suffered roughly a 2.3 percentage-point penalty in the general election, on average.
https://twitter.com/ahall_research/status/1626284078197772288
It’s obvious that keeping the NI Protocol Bill if you’ve agreed a new NI Protocol looks a very bad faith move and would suggest you’re not intending to honour that new protocol .
So of course the cancer on British politics Johnson wants to stir and comes up with this ludicrous suggestion.
We can only hope that the Privileges Committee find him guilty of knowingly misleading the House and this metastasizing cancer can be removed from British politics once and for all .
https://twitter.com/AshtenRegan/status/1627238466470699008?s=20