That’s really not a controversial view, is it? A huge number of people wait until they’re married to have children, and the statistics say that outcomes for the children (in general) are much better when living in a stable household with both parents.
It is a controversial view.
I certainly waited until marriage before having children, but many of my friends and peers did not. They did nothing wrong in my eyes.
What Forbes doesn't seem to understand is that there's nothing wrong having a faith, but keeping that faith private. Its when you, especially in the political sphere, start trying to foist your faith onto others that we have a problem.
It’s a view held by millions of Brits, in practice as well as in theory.
There’s been no indication of any intention to legislate for her views, in fact such moral issues have almost always been free votes in Parliament and she gives no indication of changing that.
What it does look like, from a long way away, is journalists and opponents looking for something they can frame as a ‘gotcha’.
They’re not having to look very hard, since she’s spoken of little else, after she posted her leadership video. It would take a bizarre kind of wilful blindness to ignore it.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
As opposed to opportunities to a traduce a middle-aged, ugly, Hull educated, childless woman?
Everyone gets traduced nowadays. That is the meaning of politics.
If that is a question the answer is No.
And No, it isn't the meaning of politics.
But why did you use all those descriptive terms?
Why 'Cambridge educated' -- as if it is something special. As if mocking the Cambridge educated is an original sin. Why 'pretty' as though mocking a pretty thing is so much worse than mocking an 'ugly' one.
Anyone can be mocked. And should be.
Especially the Cambridge educated.
Mocking the Cambridge educated is sinful.
One should not enjoy the discomfort of the afflicted.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
The problem I have with that is is not with gay marriage itself - quite the opposite - but the wider issue that traditionally such issues - abortion, etc. - have been voted on in free votes or what are as good as free votes. Abortion at Westminster, famously. More recently at Holyrood, the GRA vote, for instance, saw some Tories voting for the Act and vice versa for the SNP. So there is at least some general acceptance of the role of conscience = personal belief in precisely such areas.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Thatcher won elections (to be an MP, to be party leader, to be PM) which gave her the right to influence legislation. Forbes, if she wins this election, can do the same. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).
To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.
I've followed the thread most of the day on Ms.Forbes. As a gay man whose lived long enough to know a bit about prejudice and hate and fear and being illegal when I was much younger, I still find myself sympathetic to her honest expression of views - especially as I believe her when she says she accepts there is a difference between rekigious belief and accepting the law. The pile-on from memebers and others, including one of the declared candidates is understandable but distasteful. I accept she's porbably scuppered her chances by her honesty - I doubt the honesty of others now attacking her. But hey politics is what it is.
Is it a pile on? I've mostly seen people expressing the opinion that she's scuppered her chances and that personal opinions are fine, but you also have to accept that people who don't like your personal opinions might not vote for you.
Yousaf has handled this much better. His personal religious opinions are likely at odds with many people, too (it's likely, presumably, that he considers drinking alcohol to be wrong) but he's made clear that he would legislate liberally. Forbes has got herself in a pickle by being less clear on that.
I also respect her apparent honesty, but I'd be unlikely to vote for her if I was an SNP member.
Yousef has handled it astutely because his priority is power. I think he is likely dishonest and I wouldn't trust a word he says. I think she may have expressed herself badly. I wouldn't vote for any of them as I oppose independence.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Thatcher won elections (to be an MP, to be party leader, to be PM) which gave her the right to influence legislation. Forbes, if she wins this election, can do the same. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).
To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.
They cewrtainly did, or at least the electorate in Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch. She has a very creditable majority in her FPTP seat.
Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off
She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous
She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis
I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
This is simply electoral politics. She's standing for leadership of an avowedly left of centre, socially liberal party. So it seems unlikely the SNP members will vote for her.
It's like an unapologetic remainer standing for Tory leader and saying they would vote to rejoin including the Euro and Schengen. Or a new Tory home secretary announcing the UK should be a safe haven for refugees. It's just not on-brand.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Thatcher won elections (to be an MP, to be party leader, to be PM) which gave her the right to influence legislation. Forbes, if she wins this election, can do the same. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).
To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.
Religious beliefs aren't a magical set of values that don't really count when measuring someones belief system.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Thatcher won elections (to be an MP, to be party leader, to be PM) which gave her the right to influence legislation. Forbes, if she wins this election, can do the same. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).
To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.
That is an entirely reasonable viewpoint.
But while some are saying she has buggered up her chances, some are saying that she can't be leader because of her beliefs, and the argument being used is that she would let them influence legislation.
So now we are back to the question. Should we disbar anyone who says that their religious beliefs would influence legislation? Or do we need to make it clear - explicitly - that there are a clear set of beliefs that legitimately disqualify someone from political leadership?
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Has there not long been a view that these matters are left as free votes? I'm sure she was thinking in those terms.
Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off
She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous
She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis
I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
It's tricky getting the measure of evangelical Christians. I know a few, who are very pleasant and friendly on the surface. Obviously family oriented and good parents to their children. But I also know that they more likely than not have some deeply held views which condemn me to eternal hellfire for not being a believer, and large chunks of society for not living the lifestyle mandated by the bible. But they are generally very smiley and helpful and usually do good things for charity.
So, generally nice people then. We need more of those in politics. Will you care if they condemn you to eternal hellfire (they won’t) in the afterlife you don’t believe in?
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
As opposed to opportunities to a traduce a middle-aged, ugly, Hull educated, childless woman?
Everyone gets traduced nowadays. That is the meaning of politics.
If that is a question the answer is No.
And No, it isn't the meaning of politics.
But why did you use all those descriptive terms?
Why 'Cambridge educated' -- as if it is something special. As if mocking the Cambridge educated is an original sin. Why 'pretty' as though mocking a pretty thing is so much worse than mocking an 'ugly' one.
Anyone can be mocked. And should be.
Especially the Cambridge educated.
That's enough to have you expelled from PB if TSE hears of this! 🤣😭😀
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Thatcher won elections (to be an MP, to be party leader, to be PM) which gave her the right to influence legislation. Forbes, if she wins this election, can do the same. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).
To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.
They cewrtainly did, or at least the electorate in Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch. She has a very creditable majority in her FPTP seat.
Yes - and she should stay as their MSP for as long as they want her. If the SNP want her as leader, that's good too. If Scotland wants her as FM at the next election, also good.
If it turns out that the SNP don't want her as leader, in part because of her religious views, that's also fine with me.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Oh I think we jolly well would. Anyone of any other religion who expressed any sort of fundamentalist views and the media would be down on them like a ton of bricks, even if they said it would not influence political legislation.
About the only place you could get away with that is in NI where fundamentalism is almost compulsory.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
This is simply electoral politics. She's standing for leadership of an avowedly left of centre, socially liberal party. So it seems unlikely the SNP members will vote for her.
It's like an unapologetic remainer standing for Tory leader and saying they would vote to rejoin including the Euro and Schengen. Or a new Tory home secretary announcing the UK should be a safe haven for refugees. It's just not on-brand.
As I mentioned to Selebian, that is absolutely fine. What is not fine is the view that it she shouldn't even be considered because of her beliefs.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Nobody is saying Forbes should be disbarred. They're simply saying that her views are so out of line with the mainstream that she wouldn't make a credible candidate for SNP leader and FM.
I've followed the thread most of the day on Ms.Forbes. As a gay man whose lived long enough to know a bit about prejudice and hate and fear and being illegal when I was much younger, I still find myself sympathetic to her honest expression of views - especially as I believe her when she says she accepts there is a difference between rekigious belief and accepting the law. The pile-on from memebers and others, including one of the declared candidates is understandable but distasteful. I accept she's porbably scuppered her chances by her honesty - I doubt the honesty of others now attacking her. But hey politics is what it is.
Is it a pile on? I've mostly seen people expressing the opinion that she's scuppered her chances and that personal opinions are fine, but you also have to accept that people who don't like your personal opinions might not vote for you.
Yousaf has handled this much better. His personal religious opinions are likely at odds with many people, too (it's likely, presumably, that he considers drinking alcohol to be wrong) but he's made clear that he would legislate liberally. Forbes has got herself in a pickle by being less clear on that.
I also respect her apparent honesty, but I'd be unlikely to vote for her if I was an SNP member.
Yousef has handled it astutely because his priority is power. I think he is likely dishonest and I wouldn't trust a word he says. I think she may have expressed herself badly. I wouldn't vote for any of them as I oppose independence.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Did she? I can't think of any obvious example. Obviously one's beliefs influence you, but I can't recall anything overt.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Thatcher won elections (to be an MP, to be party leader, to be PM) which gave her the right to influence legislation. Forbes, if she wins this election, can do the same. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).
To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.
That is an entirely reasonable viewpoint.
But while some are saying she has buggered up her chances, some are saying that she can't be leader because of her beliefs, and the argument being used is that she would let them influence legislation.
So now we are back to the question. Should we disbar anyone who says that their religious beliefs would influence legislation? Or do we need to make it clear - explicitly - that there are a clear set of beliefs that legitimately disqualify someone from political leadership?
It's bonkers not to allow someone's beliefs to influence policy. That is part of their character and overall belief system. It is up to the voters to decide if enough of her beliefs coincide with their own the beliefs they dislike are not sufficient to prevent them voting for her.
Politics is about compromise and if the good people of the SNP think that someone who thinks sex outside marriage is a sin, or whatever, then who are we to criticise. It would thereafter be for the good people of Scotland to decide.
She could have lied while secretly agitating to ban abortion, or she could have told us her views and we (the Scottish voters) can make their decision.
What matters is the policies she runs on, wherever they came from. And, sadly and as much as I might disagree with it, if the voters want a fundamentalist religious person in charge of the country they should have the option to choose one.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
As opposed to opportunities to a traduce a middle-aged, ugly, Hull educated, childless woman?
Everyone gets traduced nowadays. That is the meaning of politics.
If that is a question the answer is No.
And No, it isn't the meaning of politics.
But why did you use all those descriptive terms?
Why 'Cambridge educated' -- as if it is something special. As if mocking the Cambridge educated is an original sin. Why 'pretty' as though mocking a pretty thing is so much worse than mocking an 'ugly' one.
Anyone can be mocked. And should be.
Especially the Cambridge educated.
That's enough to have you expelled from PB if TSE hears of this! 🤣😭😀
Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off
She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous
She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis
I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it
In ten years time, who knows…
It is rarer than a hen's teeth that I agree with you but on this occasion I do.
It's not merely the clutch of repulsive views which somehow manage to alienate huge swathes of society all at the same time, but the ineptitude and naivety of opening her mouth on such matters on day 2 of her leadership campaign.
It's like she launched and then decided to drill a series of holes in her own hull
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Nobody is saying Forbes should be disbarred. They're simply saying that her views are so out of line with the mainstream that she wouldn't make a credible candidate for SNP leader and FM.
Is the critical issue. She evidently thinks otherwise.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
I'd say the opposite. If she was, say, a Muslim with views on social legislation informed by conservative Islam she wouldn't be anywhere near the leadership of a mainstream political party. It's only because she's a Christian that she thinks she can express those kinds of views and still have any hope of being elected.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Thatcher won elections (to be an MP, to be party leader, to be PM) which gave her the right to influence legislation. Forbes, if she wins this election, can do the same. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).
To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.
They cewrtainly did, or at least the electorate in Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch. She has a very creditable majority in her FPTP seat.
Yes - and she should stay as their MSP for as long as they want her. If the SNP want her as leader, that's good too. If Scotland wants her as FM at the next election, also good.
If it turns out that the SNP don't want her as leader, in part because of her religious views, that's also fine with me.
You're missing out another election. That for FM of the MSPs in the Holyrood Parliament. Just because she or anyone becomes SNP leader doesn't make them FM, as I have said before but bears repeating. It's not Westminster where the opposition has to actively move against the new PM.
Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off
She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous
She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis
I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it
In ten years time, who knows…
It is weird and slightly unsettling when Leon is right and succinct on pb.com, most discombubulating.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Nobody is saying Forbes should be disbarred. They're simply saying that her views are so out of line with the mainstream that she wouldn't make a credible candidate for SNP leader and FM.
Not formally, but implicitly the message is clear as from one poster....
"So it turns out that Kate Forbes is an unreconstructed evangelical Christian with some particularly nasty views.
Thinks it's wrong for children to be born out of wedlock (wtf?), opposes virtually all abortion, thinks no one can be trans, and opposes gay marriage.
What a horrible woman. Hope to god, or even God, that the SNP aren't stupid enough to select her."
Just have the guts to say "you know what, her views are so nasty and hateful, she is unfit for political office and should be barred from standing, along with all who hold similar views". It's a lot more honest.
Someone should ask Forbes whether she'd vote Labour or Conservative if she lived in England. It's actually fathomable she'd be both honest and dumb enough to say she'd be a Tory.
It would be a gift to Labour if they did Heatherner.
Lots more votes and seats for Labour with that candidate than any other.
Go on… go on you must be tempted by that surely, think of it lovely lovely Labour votes and juicy seats 😈
I am not sure about the notion that Forbes would be best for Labour. Labour would surely still want Yousless, now the bookies favourite. Not a fresh face. A track record of messing up as a minister. Only 6% of the public made him their first choice in the initial Savanta polling (v 14% Forbes, 9% each Robertson and Sweeney).
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Did she? I can't think of any obvious example. Obviously one's beliefs influence you, but I can't recall anything overt.
Yeah I think she basically believed like a good Methodist that the church and state are separate. In fact she got very irritated when clerics started pontificating on political matters.
Her religious beliefs broadly backed her ethical approach to politics, and be in no doubt she NEVER would have had that sleaze ball Boris Johnson anywhere near her Cabinet.
But overtly legislating for something in the Bible? No I can't think of anything either.
It's open season on Kate Forbes, but those colleagues now distancing themselves from her will surely have known for years of her conservative Christian views. Maybe they expected her to dance around the issues. She has clearly decided to be brutally honest, for better or worse
Agreed, I admire her for sticking to her principles. The answer to her question is probably yes however: If the tenets of your faith put you out of step with the mainstream of UK opinion on social issues & you’re public about it, you’re going to have problems politically. There’s a reason Alasdair Campbell cut off questions about Blair’s faith with “We don’t do God”.
The UK is very socially liberal these days on many questions that in the past would have been much more controversial & that holds true across the political spectrum. It’s one of the reasons I’m still proud to be British.
We should just be honest then and say "if you hold strong religious views, you cannot be Prime Minister / FM as your views disqualify you from being a possible appointment."
Instead, we have this hypocritical standpoint where we pretend to be all tolerant and accepting but once someone comes along with such views, we then say why they are not acceptable.
Maybe we should stop looking at this through a particular moral lens. It is not true (as KF suggests) that having any religious conviction whatever bars you from office in a democracy.
To be in office involves winning contests, ones which have a hierarchy that anyone can join from the moment they are 18. Committees, party members, voters and fellow elected people do all the deciding. All can stand, all can join, all can vote. That's democracy.
I think it's sad and mistaken if in fact X won't be voted in because of a moral or religious principle which is in no way eccentric - as may happen with KF. But what I think doesn't matter. Democracy is what it is. If, on the whole, it likes Boris or Salmond, Orban or Putin, Trump or Berlusconi better than Kate Forbes let it be. Though I think there is a price to pay.
You can have religious conviction but keep it to yourself and that is not controversial. I'm sure many do.
Where there's a problem is when you expect the law of the land to be shaped by your convictions. That is a serious problem when it comes to politics, for anyone who doesn't share your convictions, which given that all religions are minorities is going to be a majority of people not sharing your faith.
As it happens here, her views are very, very eccentric.
A good rule for modern politicians is never ever talk about sex, and even when you have to, keep it brief and perfunctory. then obfuscate. Demur. Waffle. Then move on. At best anything you say will be mortifying and cringe, at worst it will end your career
Never go into details!
Thatcher knew this and practiced it, cleverly,, to the extent that even now there are well-informed people who believe she was at heart very libertine and tolerant, and others, equally well informed, who believe she was uptight and puritan
Tony Blair too, I expect he was privately more devoutly religious than some of his successors but when seeking office simply said he wouldn't talk about it.
Make it a non issue and move on. If you can't make it a non issue, then we have a problem.
Queen Elizabeth I got it right, 500 years ago. “Do not seek to make windows into men’s souls”
What is private, is private. Thus she squared the Protestant-Catholic circle in a bitterly divided nation, and became one of our greatest monarchs
Kate Forbes wants to peer through her window into your soul, and she will find you lacking
Elizabeth I also cemented the idea of the Church of England as a Catholic and Apostolic Church except with the monarch as head not the Pope.
The BCP was neither too low nor too high. It had something for both Protestants and former Catholics therefore
Yes, she had something for vboth. The axe and/or a heap of firewood if they dared step out of line publicly.
No, QE1 has to be seen in context. And the context is the ferociously sadistic Catholic monarch, Bloody Mary, who came directly before her
Compared to Mary Tudor, Gloriana was a model of tolerance. And an infinitely superior monarch
The context was also a very large European Catholic movement whose aim was to depose her by force - including invasion and assssination. She might have displayed paranoid tendencies, but they were also definitely out to get her.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
I'd say the opposite. If she was, say, a Muslim with views on social legislation informed by conservative Islam she wouldn't be anywhere near the leadership of a mainstream political party. It's only because she's a Christian that she thinks she can express those kinds of views and still have any hope of being elected.
That's a fair point although the criticism would be inverted - it would the Patriotic Alternative types who would be attacking her and the left who would be in her defence.
Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off
She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous
She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis
I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it
In ten years time, who knows…
It is weird and slightly unsettling when Leon is right and succinct on pb.com, most discombubulating.
He's not. He never is. Perhaps on kumquatting.
As we have seen, people like politicians who they deem are "honest and tell it like it is".
That buys a politician plenty of brownie points from the electorate.
I would be backing her. In fact I just might back her now.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Did she? I can't think of any obvious example. Obviously one's beliefs influence you, but I can't recall anything overt.
Yeah I think she basically believed like a good Methodist that the church and state are separate. In fact she got very irritated when clerics started pontificating on political matters.
Her religious beliefs broadly backed her ethical approach to politics, and be in no doubt she NEVER would have had that sleaze ball Boris Johnson anywhere near her Cabinet.
But overtly legislating for something in the Bible? No I can't think of anything either.
The Sermon on the Mound. Who could forget it? Clear indication of Bible affecting public policy. No, seriously.
It's open season on Kate Forbes, but those colleagues now distancing themselves from her will surely have known for years of her conservative Christian views. Maybe they expected her to dance around the issues. She has clearly decided to be brutally honest, for better or worse
It must be a bit hard for you to realise that hatred on trans issues is one and the same as hatred on gay rights, abortion rights, and now even children 'born out of wedlock'.
Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off
She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous
She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis
I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it
In ten years time, who knows…
It is rarer than a hen's teeth that I agree with you but on this occasion I do.
It's not merely the clutch of repulsive views which somehow manage to alienate huge swathes of society all at the same time, but the ineptitude and naivety of opening her mouth on such matters on day 2 of her leadership campaign.
It's like she launched and then decided to drill a series of holes in her own hull
The other way of looking at it is that she is being completely honest and upfront with who and what she is and what she believes in.
After all, the first thing to come up with the Greens will be the GRR.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Thatcher won elections (to be an MP, to be party leader, to be PM) which gave her the right to influence legislation. Forbes, if she wins this election, can do the same. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).
To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.
That is an entirely reasonable viewpoint.
But while some are saying she has buggered up her chances, some are saying that she can't be leader because of her beliefs, and the argument being used is that she would let them influence legislation.
So now we are back to the question. Should we disbar anyone who says that their religious beliefs would influence legislation? Or do we need to make it clear - explicitly - that there are a clear set of beliefs that legitimately disqualify someone from political leadership?
"Should we disbar anyone who says that their religious beliefs would influence legislation?"
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Nobody is saying Forbes should be disbarred. They're simply saying that her views are so out of line with the mainstream that she wouldn't make a credible candidate for SNP leader and FM.
Not formally, but implicitly the message is clear as from one poster....
"So it turns out that Kate Forbes is an unreconstructed evangelical Christian with some particularly nasty views.
Thinks it's wrong for children to be born out of wedlock (wtf?), opposes virtually all abortion, thinks no one can be trans, and opposes gay marriage.
What a horrible woman. Hope to god, or even God, that the SNP aren't stupid enough to select her."
Just have the guts to say "you know what, her views are so nasty and hateful, she is unfit for political office and should be barred from standing, along with all who hold similar views". It's a lot more honest.
Barred from standing? Wow, such ridiculous hyperbole.
Not wanting someone to win, or not thinking they are fit for political office does not equate to being barred from standing. I don't want Johnson to win and think him unfit for office, but of course he is entitled to stand and the establishment party are entitled to select him (again). It will make me (politically) sad if it happened but hey ho, thems the breaks.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Nobody is saying Forbes should be disbarred. They're simply saying that her views are so out of line with the mainstream that she wouldn't make a credible candidate for SNP leader and FM.
Is the critical issue. She evidently thinks otherwise.
Politics provides many examples of ill-judged ambition.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Nobody is saying Forbes should be disbarred. They're simply saying that her views are so out of line with the mainstream that she wouldn't make a credible candidate for SNP leader and FM.
Is the critical issue. She evidently thinks otherwise.
Politics provides many examples of ill-judged ambition.
And even more examples of naked ambition ending up in office.
I do hope so - I had a random bet on her at long odds when Robertson was still favourite, just on the basis that she had declared she was running.
Just on the face of it, she seems the best candidate based on five key criteria:
• She is not a anti-sex, homophobic bigot • She is not a known incompetent • She has red hair • She has an unusual name • She is @StuartDickson 's anointed successor, so must be Scottish subsample friendly
She’s photogenic, telegenic, sassy and anti trans.
She is not "anti-trans" merely thinks that the definition of a woman should be biological not psychological
In any case, what's the hair report? We await with bated breath!!
Yes you are right. I’m a bit slow on the hair report.
If at first you think Ange - then you are wrong, it’s not, it’s not that awful fringe thing is it. It’s not Ange without the bangs.
It starts off as a lob, so it’s essentially a lob, 8/10 if you identified it as a lob. And so perfect for Ashes face type. But then it goes longer, so I would give you 10/10 if you call it a “long bob”.
Like I said, photogenic, telegenic, warm, sassy, sexy even, speaks well off the cuff.
The big question though is experience. these kind of contests voters vote experience with it in mind inexperienced people could fall over in the job? So it’s important for leaders to leave build a succession plan not have flawed acolytes all around them, which is the big criticism being levelled at Sturgeon. I even think Sweden Stu would back me up on saying that.
Having said that, its still kind of weird it’s one of these three candidates. 8 years ago the right one got the job, but from a much stronger field - so what happened to heavier hitters?
As I advised the NEC at the time they passed it @theSNP definition of transphobia would not survive a legal challenge under the #EqualityAct & #HRA. The #Forstater case proved proved me right. Kate is not a transphobe. Let’s stop this madness.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Did she? I can't think of any obvious example. Obviously one's beliefs influence you, but I can't recall anything overt.
Actually very much so. For example, take her approach to the Welfare State. This was very much driven by the Weber view of the Protestant work ethic and the need for individuals and communities to take over much of the work of the state. Hence her line " I wonder whether the State services would have done as much for the man who fell among the thieves as the Good Samaritan did for him.” Thatcher's religious views very much influenced how she saw the social security net and her attitudes to the unemployed. She made those views very clear.
Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off
She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous
She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis
I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it
In ten years time, who knows…
It is rarer than a hen's teeth that I agree with you but on this occasion I do.
It's not merely the clutch of repulsive views which somehow manage to alienate huge swathes of society all at the same time, but the ineptitude and naivety of opening her mouth on such matters on day 2 of her leadership campaign.
It's like she launched and then decided to drill a series of holes in her own hull
The other way of looking at it is that she is being completely honest and upfront with who and what she is and what she believes in.
After all, the first thing to come up with the Greens will be the GRR.
Yeah but this has actually helped trans rights.
It's shown the vitriol against trans people for what it is: the same bigotry against gays, blacks, unmarried etc which has been the hallmark of such nastiness for decades.
In 20, 30, and 40 years time trans people will be enjoying the same rights as many gays do now and the last remaining rump of bigoted old white men will be searching around for another victim on whom to pour out their bile as they rail against the dying of the light.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Nobody is saying Forbes should be disbarred. They're simply saying that her views are so out of line with the mainstream that she wouldn't make a credible candidate for SNP leader and FM.
Is the critical issue. She evidently thinks otherwise.
Politics provides many examples of ill-judged ambition.
And even more examples of naked ambition ending up in office.
Yes Kate Forbes's main mistake was not going to Eton, which would have given her carte blanche to say whatever offensive crap she liked and get away with it.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
As opposed to opportunities to a traduce a middle-aged, ugly, Hull educated, childless woman?
Everyone gets traduced nowadays. That is the meaning of politics.
If that is a question the answer is No.
And No, it isn't the meaning of politics.
But why did you use all those descriptive terms?
Why 'Cambridge educated' -- as if it is something special. As if mocking the Cambridge educated is an original sin. Why 'pretty' as though mocking a pretty thing is so much worse than mocking an 'ugly' one.
Anyone can be mocked. And should be.
Especially the Cambridge educated.
Excellent points every one. As to your question: Adjectives have uses. As bullies have envious hidden motives.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Nobody is saying Forbes should be disbarred. They're simply saying that her views are so out of line with the mainstream that she wouldn't make a credible candidate for SNP leader and FM.
Is the critical issue. She evidently thinks otherwise.
Politics provides many examples of ill-judged ambition.
And even more examples of naked ambition ending up in office.
Yes Kate Forbes's main mistake was not going to Eton, which would have given her carte blanche to say whatever offensive crap she liked and get away with it.
The wife of a friend of mine is an education consultant. She tells rich people where they should send their children and was asked by the wife of a Russian oligarch (a mini-one) that she wanted to send her daughter to Eton and that he should organise it.
It's open season on Kate Forbes, but those colleagues now distancing themselves from her will surely have known for years of her conservative Christian views. Maybe they expected her to dance around the issues. She has clearly decided to be brutally honest, for better or worse
It must be a bit hard for you to realise that hatred on trans issues is one and the same as hatred on gay rights, abortion rights, and now even children 'born out of wedlock'.
Be careful with whom you get into bed.
Since I don’t have “hatred on trans issues” but am a defender of women and children’s rights you really should pay better attention.
Why do you think Susie Green’s Ted talk - lauded for years - on “transing away the gay” of her son (castrated for his 16th birthday) has been taken down?
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Nobody is saying Forbes should be disbarred. They're simply saying that her views are so out of line with the mainstream that she wouldn't make a credible candidate for SNP leader and FM.
Not formally, but implicitly the message is clear as from one poster....
"So it turns out that Kate Forbes is an unreconstructed evangelical Christian with some particularly nasty views.
Thinks it's wrong for children to be born out of wedlock (wtf?), opposes virtually all abortion, thinks no one can be trans, and opposes gay marriage.
What a horrible woman. Hope to god, or even God, that the SNP aren't stupid enough to select her."
Just have the guts to say "you know what, her views are so nasty and hateful, she is unfit for political office and should be barred from standing, along with all who hold similar views". It's a lot more honest.
TBF, that particular "contributor" doesn't have honesty as a hallmark.
As I advised the NEC at the time they passed it @theSNP definition of transphobia would not survive a legal challenge under the #EqualityAct & #HRA. The #Forstater case proved proved me right. Kate is not a transphobe. Let’s stop this madness.
FWIW I didn't find her definition of a trans woman posted upthread objectionable, at least without context (assuming the 'biological male' bit was referring to presence of a Y chromosome it was just a statement of fact). Is this related to that, or to something else?
I favour self-ID, with some safeguards, but I don't find facts offensive.
Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off
She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous
She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis
I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it
In ten years time, who knows…
It is rarer than a hen's teeth that I agree with you but on this occasion I do.
It's not merely the clutch of repulsive views which somehow manage to alienate huge swathes of society all at the same time, but the ineptitude and naivety of opening her mouth on such matters on day 2 of her leadership campaign.
It's like she launched and then decided to drill a series of holes in her own hull
The other way of looking at it is that she is being completely honest and upfront with who and what she is and what she believes in.
After all, the first thing to come up with the Greens will be the GRR.
Yeah but this has actually helped trans rights.
It's shown the vitriol against trans people for what it is: the same bigotry against gays, blacks, unmarried etc which has been the hallmark of such nastiness for decades.
In 20, 30, and 40 years time trans people will be enjoying the same rights as many gays do now and the last remaining rump of bigoted old white men will be searching around for another victim on whom to pour out their bile as they rail against the dying of the light.
What about the women?
Are you not aware of issues with trans in some minority communities?
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
As opposed to opportunities to a traduce a middle-aged, ugly, Hull educated, childless woman?
Everyone gets traduced nowadays. That is the meaning of politics.
If that is a question the answer is No.
And No, it isn't the meaning of politics.
But why did you use all those descriptive terms?
Why 'Cambridge educated' -- as if it is something special. As if mocking the Cambridge educated is an original sin. Why 'pretty' as though mocking a pretty thing is so much worse than mocking an 'ugly' one.
Anyone can be mocked. And should be.
Especially the Cambridge educated.
Mocking the Cambridge educated is sinful.
One should not enjoy the discomfort of the afflicted.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Did she? I can't think of any obvious example. Obviously one's beliefs influence you, but I can't recall anything overt.
It is likelier that a rich man travels on a bus than something called society exists. Something like that.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Nobody is saying Forbes should be disbarred. They're simply saying that her views are so out of line with the mainstream that she wouldn't make a credible candidate for SNP leader and FM.
Not formally, but implicitly the message is clear as from one poster....
"So it turns out that Kate Forbes is an unreconstructed evangelical Christian with some particularly nasty views.
Thinks it's wrong for children to be born out of wedlock (wtf?), opposes virtually all abortion, thinks no one can be trans, and opposes gay marriage.
What a horrible woman. Hope to god, or even God, that the SNP aren't stupid enough to select her."
Just have the guts to say "you know what, her views are so nasty and hateful, she is unfit for political office and should be barred from standing, along with all who hold similar views". It's a lot more honest.
Barred from standing? Wow, such ridiculous hyperbole.
Not wanting someone to win, or not thinking they are fit for political office does not equate to being barred from standing. I don't want Johnson to win and think him unfit for office, but of course he is entitled to stand and the establishment party are entitled to select him (again). It will make me (politically) sad if it happened but hey ho, thems the breaks.
I think saying you don't want someone to win and they are unfit for office is slightly different from accusing someone of being a horrible person with "some particularly nasty views" just because she is religious. Slight difference in tone
After the PB Grocery Board rightly pooh-poohed the story about rolling shortages of fruit and vegetables, it is instructive to see the retailers today imposing rationing on said products. Because there is no shortage, definitely. Oh, and its definitely not about Brexit, no its energy costs in Morocco and Spain.
Except of course that Spain isn't having these shortages, because its easier / more profitable to sell the reduced number of products there than it is to faff around getting it into the UK...
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
I think Braverman is a member of quite a hardline Buddhist sect. Funnily enough, it wasn't really mentioned against her in her campaign.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Thatcher won elections (to be an MP, to be party leader, to be PM) which gave her the right to influence legislation. Forbes, if she wins this election, can do the same. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).
To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.
That is an entirely reasonable viewpoint.
But while some are saying she has buggered up her chances, some are saying that she can't be leader because of her beliefs, and the argument being used is that she would let them influence legislation.
So now we are back to the question. Should we disbar anyone who says that their religious beliefs would influence legislation? Or do we need to make it clear - explicitly - that there are a clear set of beliefs that legitimately disqualify someone from political leadership?
It's bonkers not to allow someone's beliefs to influence policy. That is part of their character and overall belief system. It is up to the voters to decide if enough of her beliefs coincide with their own the beliefs they dislike are not sufficient to prevent them voting for her.
Politics is about compromise and if the good people of the SNP think that someone who thinks sex outside marriage is a sin, or whatever, then who are we to criticise. It would thereafter be for the good people of Scotland to decide.
She could have lied while secretly agitating to ban abortion, or she could have told us her views and we (the Scottish voters) can make their decision.
What matters is the policies she runs on, wherever they came from. And, sadly and as much as I might disagree with it, if the voters want a fundamentalist religious person in charge of the country they should have the option to choose one.
Beliefs are what the world runs on. Religious ones are a subsample of a wider reality. Most of us are agnostic about most things, even when unaware of it.
Science (Popper) proceeds on a principle of all conclusions being open to doubt and disconfirmation, thus lacking the finality sort of knowledge that might belong to maths.
That, for example, gay marriage is a good or bad or something else thing is a belief, neither more nor less. Popper's method suggests that the tyranny of the thoughts fashionable in the present moment is a dangerous thing.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
As opposed to opportunities to a traduce a middle-aged, ugly, Hull educated, childless woman?
Everyone gets traduced nowadays. That is the meaning of politics.
If that is a question the answer is No.
And No, it isn't the meaning of politics.
But why did you use all those descriptive terms?
Why 'Cambridge educated' -- as if it is something special. As if mocking the Cambridge educated is an original sin. Why 'pretty' as though mocking a pretty thing is so much worse than mocking an 'ugly' one.
Anyone can be mocked. And should be.
Especially the Cambridge educated.
Excellent points every one. As to your question: Adjectives have uses. As bullies have envious hidden motives.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
I'd say the opposite. If she was, say, a Muslim with views on social legislation informed by conservative Islam she wouldn't be anywhere near the leadership of a mainstream political party. It's only because she's a Christian that she thinks she can express those kinds of views and still have any hope of being elected.
That's a fair point although the criticism would be inverted - it would the Patriotic Alternative types who would be attacking her and the left who would be in her defence.
Not sure why you think this is a simple left/right thing in relation to which religion they are. It is more to do with whether you are socially conservative (with a small c) or not:
a) if they were a fundamentalist Muslim there would be objections from both the progressives and the socially conservative b) if they are fundamentalist Christians there would be objections from the progressives but less so from social conservatives
So a fundamentalist Muslim would be worse off from the flack in my opinion. If ever one got a chance to lead a mainstream party all hell would break loose, but there is no chance of them ever being allowed to do so is there really.
And of course all should be allowed to give it a go, although if their views are particularly extreme it is difficult to believe they would be allowed membership of most parties. In Forbe's case although I strongly disagree with her views, her views do not disbar her from being a member of the SNP so she has every right to stand. If she was a Muslim with similar views I suspect she might struggle a lot more.
Leon raised this question on a recent visit to just one of these soulless urban centres in the US. Interesting thread.
With remote work here to stay, cities around America are faced with a difficult challenge. Most office buildings won't be redeveloped into residential (floor plates either can't be converted, or cost is prohibitive), but they will also be under-occupied.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
Ask the Rohingya
That's not the case. They are Burmese Nationalists who happen to believe that to be Burmese you have to be Buddhist. They don't have any particular views on what kind of beliefs you need to have on the topics that have got Ms. Forbes in a bind.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
I’m not bullying her, or playing politics, I’m just arguing with her. She has all the same rubbish views that you have 😠
At his trial, Thomas More accused them as going against a tried and tested religion that had stood for a thousand years. History. Tradition. And you would probably agree with him wouldn’t you? History. Tradition. Religion.
But religion isn’t that. the true history of Christianity has been protest, politics, splits, violence, executions, torture, certainly every single year of its first thousand years in this world, if not many of the rest too.
It has nothing at all to do with Forbes being a Christian. There are many Christian’s on this site alone who disagree with her.
I would ask her, How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing the nonsense only a man and a woman can feel and know and honour that love and commitment, actually be the basis to build anything strong or good in this world?
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
{Myanmar has entered the chat}
despite the good press, there are plenty of Buddhist arseholes slaughtering the name of their religion.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
As opposed to opportunities to a traduce a middle-aged, ugly, Hull educated, childless woman?
Everyone gets traduced nowadays. That is the meaning of politics.
If that is a question the answer is No.
And No, it isn't the meaning of politics.
But why did you use all those descriptive terms?
Why 'Cambridge educated' -- as if it is something special. As if mocking the Cambridge educated is an original sin. Why 'pretty' as though mocking a pretty thing is so much worse than mocking an 'ugly' one.
Anyone can be mocked. And should be.
Especially the Cambridge educated.
Excellent points every one. As to your question: Adjectives have uses. As bullies have envious hidden motives.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Nobody is saying Forbes should be disbarred. They're simply saying that her views are so out of line with the mainstream that she wouldn't make a credible candidate for SNP leader and FM.
Not formally, but implicitly the message is clear as from one poster....
"So it turns out that Kate Forbes is an unreconstructed evangelical Christian with some particularly nasty views.
Thinks it's wrong for children to be born out of wedlock (wtf?), opposes virtually all abortion, thinks no one can be trans, and opposes gay marriage.
What a horrible woman. Hope to god, or even God, that the SNP aren't stupid enough to select her."
Just have the guts to say "you know what, her views are so nasty and hateful, she is unfit for political office and should be barred from standing, along with all who hold similar views". It's a lot more honest.
Barred from standing? Wow, such ridiculous hyperbole.
Not wanting someone to win, or not thinking they are fit for political office does not equate to being barred from standing. I don't want Johnson to win and think him unfit for office, but of course he is entitled to stand and the establishment party are entitled to select him (again). It will make me (politically) sad if it happened but hey ho, thems the breaks.
I think saying you don't want someone to win and they are unfit for office is slightly different from accusing someone of being a horrible person with "some particularly nasty views" just because she is religious. Slight difference in tone
I had not even heard of her til this week so no idea whether she is a delight or horrible. Personally I would describe her views as illiberal and old fashioned rather than necessarily nasty. If I were an SNP voter I wouldn't want her to represent the party.
As an outsider I think it would be a clear tactical mistake to pick a leader who has an opinion that will alienate a signficant percentage of support when there was no need, she could have just said it was a settled matter and would not change it. I can't see how they would get counterbalancing votes to make up for potential votes lost.
That is the equation that will stop her winning, not her religion.
“Growing sentiment among SNP MSPs and MPs that Kate Forbes should "pull out of the leadership race for the good of the party." Source tells me: "There is no realistic prospect of winning and her continued presence is distracting and damaging the independence cause."”
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
I must admit I was struggling with that one, but I'm sure they must exist somewhere. The god or lack of I think makes it a challenge to be hardline.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Did she? I can't think of any obvious example. Obviously one's beliefs influence you, but I can't recall anything overt.
Actually very much so. For example, take her approach to the Welfare State. This was very much driven by the Weber view of the Protestant work ethic and the need for individuals and communities to take over much of the work of the state. Hence her line " I wonder whether the State services would have done as much for the man who fell among the thieves as the Good Samaritan did for him.” Thatcher's religious views very much influenced how she saw the social security net and her attitudes to the unemployed. She made those views very clear.
A bit naive of Kate Forbes to think that public support would be based on whether politicians answered questions, rather than what their answers to the questions were!
Leon raised this question on a recent visit to just one of these soulless urban centres in the US. Interesting thread.
With remote work here to stay, cities around America are faced with a difficult challenge. Most office buildings won't be redeveloped into residential (floor plates either can't be converted, or cost is prohibitive), but they will also be under-occupied.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
Ask the Rohingya
That's not the case. They are Burmese Nationalists who happen to believe that to be Burmese you have to be Buddhist. They don't have any particular views on what kind of beliefs you need to have on the topics that have got Ms. Forbes in a bind.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
I think Braverman is a member of quite a hardline Buddhist sect. Funnily enough, it wasn't really mentioned against her in her campaign.
No. She's a member of an unusual sect which many Buddhists aren't easy with because they have no lineage whatsoever. They certainly aren't "hardline" in terms of one's personal beliefs. They are just a bit strange in that they can't come up with a coherent set of beliefs, and seem to operate off the shelf. Even to the extent that they aren't Hinayana or Mahayana. Which is pretty fundamental to the point of it. They have also been riven by a great number of sexual misconduct scandals. Nice enough folk, but a peculiar atmosphere.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
{Myanmar has entered the chat}
despite the good press, there are plenty of Buddhist arseholes slaughtering the name of their religion.
Typical. My post was 3 minutes after this one. It is bad enough when someone makes a post proving me wrong, but at least you could do me the courtesy of waiting until I post before proving I am an idiot.
Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off
She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous
She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis
I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it
In ten years time, who knows…
It is rarer than a hen's teeth that I agree with you but on this occasion I do.
It's not merely the clutch of repulsive views which somehow manage to alienate huge swathes of society all at the same time, but the ineptitude and naivety of opening her mouth on such matters on day 2 of her leadership campaign.
It's like she launched and then decided to drill a series of holes in her own hull
The other way of looking at it is that she is being completely honest and upfront with who and what she is and what she believes in.
After all, the first thing to come up with the Greens will be the GRR.
Yeah but this has actually helped trans rights.
It's shown the vitriol against trans people for what it is: the same bigotry against gays, blacks, unmarried etc which has been the hallmark of such nastiness for decades.
In 20, 30, and 40 years time trans people will be enjoying the same rights as many gays do now and the last remaining rump of bigoted old white men will be searching around for another victim on whom to pour out their bile as they rail against the dying of the light.
What rights do gay or straight people have that trans people don’t?
Does the same apply to pedophiles? Surely they’re an oppressed minority whose rights are ignored? Or do we draw the line at pedophiles because they would affect the rights of others - children? But trans people affecting the rights of women is just fine and dandy?
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Did she? I can't think of any obvious example. Obviously one's beliefs influence you, but I can't recall anything overt.
Actually very much so. For example, take her approach to the Welfare State. This was very much driven by the Weber view of the Protestant work ethic and the need for individuals and communities to take over much of the work of the state. Hence her line " I wonder whether the State services would have done as much for the man who fell among the thieves as the Good Samaritan did for him.” Thatcher's religious views very much influenced how she saw the social security net and her attitudes to the unemployed. She made those views very clear.
How come nobody has mentioned Section 28?
A very good question. Wiki:
"The law is named after Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which added Section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986.[2] Enacted on 24 May 1988, the amendment stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".[3] It was repealed on 21 June 2000 in Scotland by the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the new Scottish Parliament, and on 18 November 2003 in England and Wales by section 122 of the Local Government Act 2003.[4]"
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Thatcher won elections (to be an MP, to be party leader, to be PM) which gave her the right to influence legislation. Forbes, if she wins this election, can do the same. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).
To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.
They cewrtainly did, or at least the electorate in Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch. She has a very creditable majority in her FPTP seat.
Yes - and she should stay as their MSP for as long as they want her. If the SNP want her as leader, that's good too. If Scotland wants her as FM at the next election, also good.
If it turns out that the SNP don't want her as leader, in part because of her religious views, that's also fine with me.
You're missing out another election. That for FM of the MSPs in the Holyrood Parliament. Just because she or anyone becomes SNP leader doesn't make them FM, as I have said before but bears repeating. It's not Westminster where the opposition has to actively move against the new PM.
That's a good point (and one that I was only vaguely aware of).
Nice feature, so even without a new Holyrood election, the new FM needs an explicit mandate from the people's representatives. Probably doesn't make much difference in practice, but it does feel better.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
{Myanmar has entered the chat}
despite the good press, there are plenty of Buddhist arseholes slaughtering the name of their religion.
Typical. My post was 3 minutes after this one. It is bad enough when someone makes a post proving me wrong, but at least you could do me the courtesy of waiting until I post before proving I am an idiot.
Wouldn't worry. It happens to all of us. Some of us learn. Some don't.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
I must admit I was struggling with that one, but I'm sure they must exist somewhere. The god or lack of I think makes it a challenge to be hardline.
The lack of a God doesn’t seem to be an obstacle to medium pace recreational genocide
See Myanmar
Also the Buddhists on the Imperial Japanese military in WWII were a barrel of laughs.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
Ask the Rohingya
That's not the case. They are Burmese Nationalists who happen to believe that to be Burmese you have to be Buddhist. They don't have any particular views on what kind of beliefs you need to have on the topics that have got Ms. Forbes in a bind.
This is ‘no true Scotsman’
No TRUE Christian would have supported the Crusades/inquisition/witch burnings, etc
Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off
She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous
She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis
I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it
In ten years time, who knows…
It is rarer than a hen's teeth that I agree with you but on this occasion I do.
It's not merely the clutch of repulsive views which somehow manage to alienate huge swathes of society all at the same time, but the ineptitude and naivety of opening her mouth on such matters on day 2 of her leadership campaign.
It's like she launched and then decided to drill a series of holes in her own hull
The other way of looking at it is that she is being completely honest and upfront with who and what she is and what she believes in.
After all, the first thing to come up with the Greens will be the GRR.
Yeah but this has actually helped trans rights.
It's shown the vitriol against trans people for what it is: the same bigotry against gays, blacks, unmarried etc which has been the hallmark of such nastiness for decades.
In 20, 30, and 40 years time trans people will be enjoying the same rights as many gays do now and the last remaining rump of bigoted old white men will be searching around for another victim on whom to pour out their bile as they rail against the dying of the light.
What rights do gay or straight people have that trans people don’t?
Does the same apply to pedophiles? Surely they’re an oppressed minority whose rights are ignored? Or do we draw the line at pedophiles because they would affect the rights of others - children? But trans people affecting the rights of women is just fine and dandy?
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
Ask the Rohingya
That's not the case. They are Burmese Nationalists who happen to believe that to be Burmese you have to be Buddhist. They don't have any particular views on what kind of beliefs you need to have on the topics that have got Ms. Forbes in a bind.
Not denying that at all. But there are no hardline beliefs on sexuality, the role of the family, or even trans issues. The Buddha left his family the night his son was born. He was a deadbeat Dad. Thailand is full of ladyboys. The Jesuits were astonished when they went to China at the technology and governmental efficiency amongst other things. They decided, however, that they must be inferior as homosexuality was simply accepted as a thing. So. My contention is. You couldn't be a Buddhist and hold the views of Ms. Forbes. It's simply none of a hardcore Buddhist's business.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
I’m not bullying her, or playing politics, I’m just arguing with her. She has all the same rubbish views that you have 😠
At his trial, Thomas More accused them as going against a tried and tested religion that had stood for a thousand years. History. Tradition. And you would probably agree with him wouldn’t you? History. Tradition. Religion.
But religion isn’t that. the true history of Christianity has been protest, politics, splits, violence, executions, torture, certainly every single year of its first thousand years in this world, if not many of the rest too.
It has nothing at all to do with Forbes being a Christian. There are many Christian’s on this site alone who disagree with her.
I would ask her, How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing the nonsense only a man and a woman can feel and know and honour that love and commitment, actually be the basis to build anything strong or good in this world?
I consider myself a Christian of the Dave Allen variety 'may your God go with you' but the 'wee frees' are at the extreme end of ideology, are entitled to their views, but personally they are simply wrong and distasteful
I do admire her honesty though, but it seems honesty in this matter will see her challenge run aground, (much like the Scottish Ferry contract)
Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off
She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous
She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis
I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it
In ten years time, who knows…
It is rarer than a hen's teeth that I agree with you but on this occasion I do.
It's not merely the clutch of repulsive views which somehow manage to alienate huge swathes of society all at the same time, but the ineptitude and naivety of opening her mouth on such matters on day 2 of her leadership campaign.
It's like she launched and then decided to drill a series of holes in her own hull
The other way of looking at it is that she is being completely honest and upfront with who and what she is and what she believes in.
After all, the first thing to come up with the Greens will be the GRR.
Yeah but this has actually helped trans rights.
It's shown the vitriol against trans people for what it is: the same bigotry against gays, blacks, unmarried etc which has been the hallmark of such nastiness for decades.
In 20, 30, and 40 years time trans people will be enjoying the same rights as many gays do now and the last remaining rump of bigoted old white men will be searching around for another victim on whom to pour out their bile as they rail against the dying of the light.
What rights do gay or straight people have that trans people don’t?
Does the same apply to pedophiles? Surely they’re an oppressed minority whose rights are ignored? Or do we draw the line at pedophiles because they would affect the rights of others - children? But trans people affecting the rights of women is just fine and dandy?
Oh dear, you went there.
Answer the question.
What do we do when the rights of one group impinge on the rights of another?
Pretend there is no conflict “no debate” or discuss it?
Either candidate for the SNP looks a big step down.
Starmer majority seems to be growing by the day. And I wonder if Labour will now reclaim its 2010 levels in Scotland. Starmer would be the first PM of GB for many years
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
I must admit I was struggling with that one, but I'm sure they must exist somewhere. The god or lack of I think makes it a challenge to be hardline.
The lack of a God doesn’t seem to be an obstacle to medium pace recreational genocide
See Myanmar
Also the Buddhists on the Imperial Japanese military in WWII were a barrel of laughs.
See my post in reply to your previous post. I capitulated there and then. I gave up without any fight whatsoever. I conceded defeat immediately. Bugger.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.
I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.
Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?
Thatcher won elections (to be an MP, to be party leader, to be PM) which gave her the right to influence legislation. Forbes, if she wins this election, can do the same. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).
To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.
They cewrtainly did, or at least the electorate in Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch. She has a very creditable majority in her FPTP seat.
Yes - and she should stay as their MSP for as long as they want her. If the SNP want her as leader, that's good too. If Scotland wants her as FM at the next election, also good.
If it turns out that the SNP don't want her as leader, in part because of her religious views, that's also fine with me.
You're missing out another election. That for FM of the MSPs in the Holyrood Parliament. Just because she or anyone becomes SNP leader doesn't make them FM, as I have said before but bears repeating. It's not Westminster where the opposition has to actively move against the new PM.
That's a good point (and one that I was only vaguely aware of).
Nice feature, so even without a new Holyrood election, the new FM needs an explicit mandate from the people's representatives. Probably doesn't make much difference in practice, but it does feel better.
It is much better than the usual Tory or Labour nudge wink kiss hands with KC stuff. And it does make a hell of a difference in practice, which some of ujs seems to be missing. If the SNP members elect Ms Forbes, or indeed any other candidate, as leader, this influences which way the Greens would vote - and about how other parties might vote, not necessarily monolithically either. I certainly can't predict it.
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
Ask the Rohingya
That's not the case. They are Burmese Nationalists who happen to believe that to be Burmese you have to be Buddhist. They don't have any particular views on what kind of beliefs you need to have on the topics that have got Ms. Forbes in a bind.
This is ‘no true Scotsman’
No TRUE Christian would have supported the Crusades/inquisition/witch burnings, etc
No it isn't. It's a different point entirely. For a start. There is no membership. Nor conversion, nor expulsion, confirmation or hierarchy. So you are a Buddhist while you're being a Buddhist. You can drop in and out and everyone does. That's literally part of it. So no true Buddhist is actually fundamental.
Either candidate for the SNP looks a big step down.
Starmer majority seems to be growing by the day. And I wonder if Labour will now reclaim its 2010 levels in Scotland. Starmer would be the first PM of GB for many years
1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English. 2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment. 3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that. 4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.
Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).
Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.
Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP
you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.
I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.
The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.
The sight is utterly distasteful.
Where do I join so that I can vote for her?
Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.
Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.
As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.
If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.
And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.
But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?
Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.
And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?
What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?
I must admit I was struggling with that one, but I'm sure they must exist somewhere. The god or lack of I think makes it a challenge to be hardline.
The lack of a God doesn’t seem to be an obstacle to medium pace recreational genocide
See Myanmar
Also the Buddhists on the Imperial Japanese military in WWII were a barrel of laughs.
See my post in reply to your previous post. I capitulated there and then. I gave up without any fight whatsoever. I conceded defeat immediately.
That won’t save you from the Buddhists running a beheading competition….
Comments
It would take a bizarre kind of wilful blindness to ignore it.
Lots more votes and seats for Labour with that candidate than any other.
Go on… go on you must be tempted by that surely, think of it lovely lovely Labour votes and juicy seats 😈
One should not enjoy the discomfort of the afflicted.
What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).
To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.
She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous
She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis
I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it
In ten years time, who knows…
It's like an unapologetic remainer standing for Tory leader and saying they would vote to rejoin including the Euro and Schengen. Or a new Tory home secretary announcing the UK should be a safe haven for refugees. It's just not on-brand.
Only joking, I do give up after-work beers though 🍻
But while some are saying she has buggered up her chances, some are saying that she can't be leader because of her beliefs, and the argument being used is that she would let them influence legislation.
So now we are back to the question. Should we disbar anyone who says that their religious beliefs would influence legislation? Or do we need to make it clear - explicitly - that there are a clear set of beliefs that legitimately disqualify someone from political leadership?
If it turns out that the SNP don't want her as leader, in part because of her religious views, that's also fine with me.
About the only place you could get away with that is in NI where fundamentalism is almost compulsory.
Politics is about compromise and if the good people of the SNP think that someone who thinks sex outside marriage is a sin, or whatever, then who are we to criticise. It would thereafter be for the good people of Scotland to decide.
She could have lied while secretly agitating to ban abortion, or she could have told us her views and we (the Scottish voters) can make their decision.
What matters is the policies she runs on, wherever they came from. And, sadly and as much as I might disagree with it, if the voters want a fundamentalist religious person in charge of the country they should have the option to choose one.
Help! I am being Oppressed!
It's not merely the clutch of repulsive views which somehow manage to alienate huge swathes of society all at the same time, but the ineptitude and naivety of opening her mouth on such matters on day 2 of her leadership campaign.
It's like she launched and then decided to drill a series of holes in her own hull
Rishi Sunak is ‘hugely proud’ of the UK’s diversity and tolerance.
But stops short of saying Ms Forbes shouldn’t be Scotland’s FM:
‘It’s fundamentally a decision for members of political parties to decide who leads them.’
https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1628001646805409795
Bit ironic given Tory MPs are getting deselected because the members didn’t have a choice….
"So it turns out that Kate Forbes is an unreconstructed evangelical Christian with some particularly nasty views.
Thinks it's wrong for children to be born out of wedlock (wtf?), opposes virtually all abortion, thinks no one can be trans, and opposes gay marriage.
What a horrible woman. Hope to god, or even God, that the SNP aren't stupid enough to select her."
Just have the guts to say "you know what, her views are so nasty and hateful, she is unfit for political office and should be barred from standing, along with all who hold similar views". It's a lot more honest.
Her religious beliefs broadly backed her ethical approach to politics, and be in no doubt she NEVER would have had that sleaze ball Boris Johnson anywhere near her Cabinet.
But overtly legislating for something in the Bible? No I can't think of anything either.
It's open season on Kate Forbes, but those colleagues now distancing themselves from her will surely have known for years of her conservative Christian views. Maybe they expected her to dance around the issues. She has clearly decided to be brutally honest, for better or worse
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1628017445507063820?s=20
She might have displayed paranoid tendencies, but they were also definitely out to get her.
As we have seen, people like politicians who they deem are "honest and tell it like it is".
That buys a politician plenty of brownie points from the electorate.
I would be backing her. In fact I just might back her now.
https://speakola.com/political/margaret-thatcher-sermon-on-the-mound-1988
Be careful with whom you get into bed.
After all, the first thing to come up with the Greens will be the GRR.
No, of course not.
Not wanting someone to win, or not thinking they are fit for political office does not equate to being barred from standing. I don't want Johnson to win and think him unfit for office, but of course he is entitled to stand and the establishment party are entitled to select him (again). It will make me (politically) sad if it happened but hey ho, thems the breaks.
If at first you think Ange - then you are wrong, it’s not, it’s not that awful fringe thing is it. It’s not Ange without the bangs.
It starts off as a lob, so it’s essentially a lob, 8/10 if you identified it as a lob. And so perfect for Ashes face type. But then it goes longer, so I would give you 10/10 if you call it a “long bob”.
Ashes hair is great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eis3yj8nIiw
Like I said, photogenic, telegenic, warm, sassy, sexy even, speaks well off the cuff.
The big question though is experience. these kind of contests voters vote experience with it in mind inexperienced people could fall over in the job? So it’s important for leaders to leave build a succession plan not have flawed acolytes all around them, which is the big criticism being levelled at Sturgeon. I even think Sweden Stu would back me up on saying that.
Having said that, its still kind of weird it’s one of these three candidates. 8 years ago the right one got the job, but from a much stronger field - so what happened to heavier hitters?
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1628026589425410049?s=20
As I advised the NEC at the time they passed it @theSNP definition of transphobia would not survive a legal challenge under the #EqualityAct & #HRA. The #Forstater case proved proved me right. Kate is not a transphobe. Let’s stop this madness.
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1628053819639701504?s=20
It's shown the vitriol against trans people for what it is: the same bigotry against gays, blacks, unmarried etc which has been the hallmark of such nastiness for decades.
In 20, 30, and 40 years time trans people will be enjoying the same rights as many gays do now and the last remaining rump of bigoted old white men will be searching around for another victim on whom to pour out their bile as they rail against the dying of the light.
signed Algarkirk MA Cantab
Why do you think Susie Green’s Ted talk - lauded for years - on “transing away the gay” of her son (castrated for his 16th birthday) has been taken down?
I favour self-ID, with some safeguards, but I don't find facts offensive.
Are you not aware of issues with trans in some minority communities?
Something like that.
Except of course that Spain isn't having these shortages, because its easier / more profitable to sell the reduced number of products there than it is to faff around getting it into the UK...
Science (Popper) proceeds on a principle of all conclusions being open to doubt and disconfirmation, thus lacking the finality sort of knowledge that might belong to maths.
That, for example, gay marriage is a good or bad or something else thing is a belief, neither more nor less. Popper's method suggests that the tyranny of the thoughts fashionable in the present moment is a dangerous thing.
You signed it with your pretendy MA.
signed @YBarddCwsc (Scumbag College, expelled)
a) if they were a fundamentalist Muslim there would be objections from both the progressives and the socially conservative
b) if they are fundamentalist Christians there would be objections from the progressives but less so from social conservatives
So a fundamentalist Muslim would be worse off from the flack in my opinion. If ever one got a chance to lead a mainstream party all hell would break loose, but there is no chance of them ever being allowed to do so is there really.
And of course all should be allowed to give it a go, although if their views are particularly extreme it is difficult to believe they would be allowed membership of most parties. In Forbe's case although I strongly disagree with her views, her views do not disbar her from being a member of the SNP so she has every right to stand. If she was a Muslim with similar views I suspect she might struggle a lot more.
Interesting thread.
With remote work here to stay, cities around America are faced with a difficult challenge. Most office buildings won't be redeveloped into residential (floor plates either can't be converted, or cost is prohibitive), but they will also be under-occupied.
What happens then?
https://twitter.com/Cobylefko/status/1628038716403875843
They don't have any particular views on what kind of beliefs you need to have on the topics that have got Ms. Forbes in a bind.
At his trial, Thomas More accused them as going against a tried and tested religion that had stood for a thousand years. History. Tradition. And you would probably agree with him wouldn’t you? History. Tradition. Religion.
But religion isn’t that. the true history of Christianity has been protest, politics, splits, violence, executions, torture, certainly every single year of its first thousand years in this world, if not many of the rest too.
It has nothing at all to do with Forbes being a Christian. There are many Christian’s on this site alone who disagree with her.
I would ask her, How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing the nonsense only a man and a woman can feel and know and honour that love and commitment, actually be the basis to build anything strong or good in this world?
despite the good press, there are plenty of Buddhist arseholes slaughtering the name of their religion.
As an outsider I think it would be a clear tactical mistake to pick a leader who has an opinion that will alienate a signficant percentage of support when there was no need, she could have just said it was a settled matter and would not change it. I can't see how they would get counterbalancing votes to make up for potential votes lost.
That is the equation that will stop her winning, not her religion.
https://twitter.com/alexofbrown/status/1628023489264332804?s=61&t=Piwa2wTZo9hjbQNUmVEthA
But hardline religious leaders who believe in forceful conversion do seem pretty extreme.
Quite a number of those nationalists are monks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence
She's a member of an unusual sect which many Buddhists aren't easy with because they have no lineage whatsoever.
They certainly aren't "hardline" in terms of one's personal beliefs.
They are just a bit strange in that they can't come up with a coherent set of beliefs, and seem to operate off the shelf. Even to the extent that they aren't Hinayana or Mahayana. Which is pretty fundamental to the point of it.
They have also been riven by a great number of sexual misconduct scandals.
Nice enough folk, but a peculiar atmosphere.
Does the same apply to pedophiles? Surely they’re an oppressed minority whose rights are ignored? Or do we draw the line at pedophiles because they would affect the rights of others - children? But trans people affecting the rights of women is just fine and dandy?
"The law is named after Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which added Section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986.[2] Enacted on 24 May 1988, the amendment stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".[3] It was repealed on 21 June 2000 in Scotland by the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the new Scottish Parliament, and on 18 November 2003 in England and Wales by section 122 of the Local Government Act 2003.[4]"
Nice feature, so even without a new Holyrood election, the new FM needs an explicit mandate from the people's representatives. Probably doesn't make much difference in practice, but it does feel better.
See Myanmar
Also the Buddhists on the Imperial Japanese military in WWII were a barrel of laughs.
No TRUE Christian would have supported the Crusades/inquisition/witch burnings, etc
Supply of vegetables to Ireland disrupted by poor weather and energy costs
Shortages reported in broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, aubergines and courgettes
https://www.irishtimes.com/food/2023/02/21/supply-of-vegetables-to-ireland-disrupted-by-poor-weather-and-energy-costs/
But there are no hardline beliefs on sexuality, the role of the family, or even trans issues.
The Buddha left his family the night his son was born. He was a deadbeat Dad. Thailand is full of ladyboys. The Jesuits were astonished when they went to China at the technology and governmental efficiency amongst other things. They decided, however, that they must be inferior as homosexuality was simply accepted as a thing.
So. My contention is. You couldn't be a Buddhist and hold the views of Ms. Forbes. It's simply none of a hardcore Buddhist's business.
I do admire her honesty though, but it seems honesty in this matter will see her challenge run aground, (much like the Scottish Ferry contract)
What do we do when the rights of one group impinge on the rights of another?
Pretend there is no conflict “no debate” or discuss it?
Starmer majority seems to be growing by the day. And I wonder if Labour will now reclaim its 2010 levels in Scotland. Starmer would be the first PM of GB for many years
It's a different point entirely.
For a start. There is no membership. Nor conversion, nor expulsion, confirmation or hierarchy.
So you are a Buddhist while you're being a Buddhist.
You can drop in and out and everyone does.
That's literally part of it.
So no true Buddhist is actually fundamental.