I double checked - the statement is on their Facebook page.
Not a surprise if you live in Scotland
I don't understand why this guy is odds-on favourite. I smell a campaign against Forbes. Is she value now?
He's fav because Ms Forbes looks as if she has done a kamikaze (I'm not quite so sure) and the southern media haven't bothered to look up Ms Regan and do some research instead of relying on lazy sterotypes about island hellfire preachers like something out of Wicker Man (the FCS, for one thing, not being a specifically island kirk). I don't think the betting is likely to be particularly well informed by the standard of such things.
Well I'm laying Yousaf at these odds.
There is Regan and I'm not convinced that Forbes is out of it In the current climate - and he is surely vulnerable to another candidate trowing their hat in in the next two days.
Exactly. Two days, two and a half hours to go yet before noms close.
Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.
Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:
I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….
The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.
50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less
Nothing better sums up the yearning of an occupied country. fighting for its identity that the conversion of the A9 into a dual carriageway. It's going to be the foundational epic of the new nation.
Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.
Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:
I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….
The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.
50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less
Nothing better sums up the yearning of an occupied country. fighting for its identity that the conversion of the A9 into a dual carriageway. It's going to be the foundational epic of the new nation.
Come on DA, aren't you just a little bit inspired by the idea of bombing up the newly dualled A9 at 175mph?
Although if you drive that slowly be prepared to be overtaken by all the locals.
I see the pensions website on gov.uk is still down. Martin Lewis has a helluva following.
Hmm. This is a time when we have had a major change to regs on topping up, too. And when people will want to know if their extra payments got in OK before the deadline.
Yes, I still want to do some checks myself.
My entire sympathy. Mrs C and I had to do all that several times over in the last year or so.
Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each
Huge difference
Assuming you have £9. And want to only eat tomato soup. Then that's OK then. Thanks for your input. Exactly the kind of stuff that's winning Tory support.
I was demonstrating the difference and not making a political point to be fair
And that's why you don't get it. And why many can't understand why the government is so unpopular.
Never mind, Drakeford's latest policy is to ban all multi buy offers in Wales
I don't like travelling at a maximum speed of 20mph. Living where I do, I do not intend to dispose of my car and take non-existent public transport as Drakeford demands by his cancellation of all road projects.. Even Andrew RT Davies looks attractive after that last policy.
But I am with Shaky Drakey over the multi buy ban. Encouraging excessive purchasing is potentially wasteful and potentially encourages gluttony. It is all about supermarkets maximising customer spend per visit, with an expectation of wastage so you come back for more anyway. Just price at the best price like Aldi and Lidl, it's simple really. The big 4 supermarket cabal is the instrument of the Devil. Unfair to farmers and producers, unfair to consumers. A plague on their supply of salad vegetables. Oh wait...
The argument is that the food is cheaper if bought together ... which is, err, bad.
No that is a fair point, particularly when the snack element can be fruit to be consumed immediately. You've tumbled my game, FM Andrew RT Davies it is then (and I am not being flippant).
Of course, the Drake announced he was going <= 2024. (Probably the sad death of his wife makes this sooner rather than later.)
So, yet another leadership election before the next GE ... this time of Llafur.
It is quite conceivable that we end up with Sunak as PM, Yousaf as FM of Scotland and Gething as FM of Wales.
Which would be progress on at least one front ... though possibly not the competence front.
Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.
Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:
I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….
The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.
50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less
Nothing better sums up the yearning of an occupied country. fighting for its identity that the conversion of the A9 into a dual carriageway. It's going to be the foundational epic of the new nation.
But will they dual the A1 south of Berwick? Bit pointless unionists lecturing us on dualling the A1 otherwise (though logically it also works the other way round).
Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each
Huge difference
Assuming you have £9. And want to only eat tomato soup. Then that's OK then. Thanks for your input. Exactly the kind of stuff that's winning Tory support.
I was demonstrating the difference and not making a political point to be fair
And that's why you don't get it. And why many can't understand why the government is so unpopular.
Never mind, Drakeford's latest policy is to ban all multi buy offers in Wales
I don't like travelling at a maximum speed of 20mph. Living where I do, I do not intend to dispose of my car and take non-existent public transport as Drakeford demands by his cancellation of all road projects.. Even Andrew RT Davies looks attractive after that last policy.
But I am with Shaky Drakey over the multi buy ban. Encouraging excessive purchasing is potentially wasteful and potentially encourages gluttony. It is all about supermarkets maximising customer spend per visit, with an expectation of wastage so you come back for more anyway. Just price at the best price like Aldi and Lidl, it's simple really. The big 4 supermarket cabal is the instrument of the Devil. Unfair to farmers and producers, unfair to consumers. A plague on their supply of salad vegetables. Oh wait...
We went to a lesbian wedding a year or two ago. A pleasant and peaceful affair. Having spent a couple of decades playing rugby in my youth, I'm amazed any woman is heterosexual.
But as a committed Catholic, I'd vote for Forbes or Tim Farron. No problem with heretics at all.
You can be elected UK PM as an atheist or religious now. Starmer is an atheist but respectful of those with faith, Cameron and May and Boris were Christians and Sunak is Hindu.
However you probably can't be elected PM now if you follow all the Bible or the Koran so strictly you openly oppose homosexual marriage or you want to ban abortion completely. The same applies to FM of Scotland, hence Forbes' problems.
We went to a lesbian wedding a year or two ago. A pleasant and peaceful affair. Having spent a couple of decades playing rugby in my youth, I'm amazed any woman is heterosexual.
But as a committed Catholic, I'd vote for Forbes or Tim Farron. No problem with heretics at all.
We have a relative in Canada. Not one of nature's beauties to be honest, much of it self-inflicted obeseness. Maybe that's harsh - not uncommon in Canada it seems to me. A shame. Anyway, her plan is to give it a couple of years and then if no man has appeared she will pop into the sperm bank clinic instead. She can choose between a range of donor characteristics (hair colour, eye colour, IQ, height etc) by perusing a catalogue.
Does all this mean Forbes has no hope of becoming first minister? Not necessarily. But I think she and her aides may have misidentified the resistance she is facing. Secular voters are fine with religion as culture. We’re a’ Jock Tamson’s bairns. They are even fine with religion as a moral purpose in politics. It is the fire and brimstone they have a problem with. The weeping and gnashing of teeth. The smiting. Leviticus is a bit of a downer.
Forbes needs to make some things clear. Although a product of fundamentalist Presbyterianism, she is not its prisoner. Although a believer, she is not a proselytiser. Although she is living a religious life, the rest of us can live whatever lives we goddam like, and she will defend our right to do so. Is she capable of giving those answers?
Perhaps a bit of research may be useful before judging the merit of a statement from the "Indian Council of Scotland", which doesn't even have a website?
The “Muslim Council of UK” seems dodgy as heck, but the Indian Council has been around a while and Yousuf has behaved questionably over the Nursery case.
I double checked - the statement is on their Facebook page.
Not a surprise if you live in Scotland
I can't find any evidence of the "Muslim Council of the UK", and think it's an attempt to conflate with the Muslim Council of Britain.
Still digging into the Indian Council of Scotland, but they don't have a large online presence, at the very least.
The Indian Council of Scotland are on Facebook with 1k followers. As are the Muslim Council of the U.K. which appeared yesterday and has 3 followers….
Using FB as a platform should be a pretty big clue, reeks entirely of angry old gammons lashing out with whatever means are at there disposal (green ink letters to the much diminished press being another fave). I’m not surprised that AgentPee would be taken in by the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, can’t wait to hear Historywoman’s take.
Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?
Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.
Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.
It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.
There is also the question of local politics. Do we ban people with religious views from holding power there? There are plenty of areas where allowing religious beliefs to influence politics has a very real effect e.g. education, social services etc.
@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.
Who wants to go first at saying that?
You seem to have missed my point. Despite disagreeing with her views, I am quite OK about Kate Fobes as a national politician.
I have no problem with similar views expressed by African Christians or Asian Muslims either.
All these views are fine as long as people respect the law and do not try to legislate their morality onto other people.
It isn't possible to keep belief, politics, morality, legislation, secularity, religion, worldview all is separate boxes.
Religion is merely a subsample of 'beliefs' generally. Certainty is so elusive that most of what we think are beliefs… ..Gay marriage is similar. Some people (a minority at the moment which Forbes and I are both in though we probably differ about most things) think that marriage is better defined such that it is only between one man and one woman, and that is objectively better for society. Genuine beliefs differ. Gosh. Fancy that.
If certainty is so elusive, how do you believe such a thing (which seems pretty daft to me, FWIW) objectively ?
Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.
Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:
I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….
The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.
50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less
Nothing better sums up the yearning of an occupied country. fighting for its identity that the conversion of the A9 into a dual carriageway. It's going to be the foundational epic of the new nation.
Come on DA, aren't you just a little bit inspired by the idea of bombing up the newly dualled A9 at 175mph?
Although if you drive that slowly be prepared to be overtaken by all the locals.
I'm sure it's a worthy idea. I just feel Reg Ashton is going to need a substantially more engaging and inspiring leitmotif.
I double checked - the statement is on their Facebook page.
Not a surprise if you live in Scotland
I can't find any evidence of the "Muslim Council of the UK", and think it's an attempt to conflate with the Muslim Council of Britain.
Still digging into the Indian Council of Scotland, but they don't have a large online presence, at the very least.
The Indian Council of Scotland are on Facebook with 1k followers. As are the Muslim Council of the U.K. which appeared yesterday and has 3 followers….
Quite. Interesting to see how many PBers fell for that straight off.
Who fell for what exactly?
We are just sitting back watching the clownshow, as Candidate A hits herself in the face with a cake full of cuttlefish-spunk, and then Candidate B gets attacked by a dwarf dressed as a Zoroastrian donkey, and candidate C rules themselves out because they have 9 million quid resting in their Icelandic Tartan Bond ISA account, a fact known to Candidate D who is actually the ghost of Alex Salmond, living in Bermuda
Kate Forbes is a social, economic and fiscal conservative. She is only in the SNP because she believes in Scottish independence. The SNP is a nationalist party, not a left-of-centre one.
The events of yesterday suggest that they’re very much now a left-of-centre party, with seemingly little room for anyone who’s socially conservative.
You think the wittering of some Sturgeon supporters bricking it because they have Useless as their champion and the bent unionist media reflects the opinion of the public. Her biggest issue is who is counting the votes.
By contrast in 1959 only 45% would vote for an atheist
'Oct 1959: If the party of your choice nominated a generally well-qualified person as parliamentary candidate, would you vote for him/her if he/she were one of the following? Roman Catholic 82% Yes Woman 76% Jew 71% Coloured person 61% Atheist 45%'
Srill true in parts of the US, I think. A friend from Alabama deeply envies British culture for our indifference to the atheism of politicians. That said, I'm not sure how he'd feel about freedom to be very religious.
For those of us who like to think we have small-l liberal values, it's tricky territory to navigate. I feel that if Forbes keeps her religion entirely separate from her policies, then I don't care what she believes in - it is literally none of our business. But with the militantly assertive religions, I'm not sure it's actually possible to be a sincere member and not have it influence your policies as a politician? Say the incident with the freedom of a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple came up in Scotland and she had to take a view. How could she not be influenced by being dubious about gay couples?
So, while respecting her honesty and her right to belief, I do think it's a genuine snag to being a national leader. By contrast, Hinduism has some odd beliefs, but in its British form it doesn't seem especially insistent on its followers pushing its teachings in every sphere. Humza will escape serious criticism on that count unless he can be found saying "As a Hindu, I have to oppose..."
Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.
Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:
I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….
The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.
50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less
Nothing better sums up the yearning of an occupied country. fighting for its identity that the conversion of the A9 into a dual carriageway. It's going to be the foundational epic of the new nation.
You need to remember that the Stone of Scone on which the unionists get so excited was actually a mediaeval drain manhole cover foisted off on Edward Longshanks.
Could do worse as a reminder of government priorities, I've always thought. It also explains why the Scots were so meh when the Tories got all excited about deigning to return it to Scotland. Never forgotten the Satrap in State trailing behind the hearse up the High Street in Edinburgh with the crowds silent except for the odd sarcastic remark or boo.
What we are currently discovering is just how good a leader of the SNP Nicola Sturgeon has been. Of course, that is very different to saying she has been a good First Minister.
I agree ... except a good leader has thought about succession planning.
Sturgeon was truly exceptional as a leader of a political party.
Can we plan Drakeford's succession. I have Andy Davies in mind!
Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.
Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.
Shall I tell you how bad Kate Forbes is?
If I lived in Scotland and she was SNP leader.
I would have to consider voting Labour.
She is that bad.
So, given your judgement of leaders included endorsements of Johnson and Corbyn, we should assume she’s actually pretty good?
I also thought big John owls was a Labour supporter because there is no other left wing option (in England / Wales) that reflects his views.
In Scotland the SNP has until now managed to occupy a left wing position that probably gave them a lot of Scottish Labour votes. It’s very easy to see many of them returning to Labour if any reason existed for them tp do so (either a non left wing SN- leader or a more appealing Scottish Labour Party.
While they have a millionaire , minimum wage paying , useless London sockpuppet as leader they are going nowhere.
By contrast in 1959 only 45% would vote for an atheist
'Oct 1959: If the party of your choice nominated a generally well-qualified person as parliamentary candidate, would you vote for him/her if he/she were one of the following? Roman Catholic 82% Yes Woman 76% Jew 71% Coloured person 61% Atheist 45%'
Srill true in parts of the US, I think. A friend from Alabama deeply envies British culture for our indifference to the atheism of politicians. That said, I'm not sure how he'd feel about freedom to be very religious.
For those of us who like to think we have small-l liberal values, it's tricky territory to navigate. I feel that if Forbes keeps her religion entirely separate from her policies, then I don't care what she believes in - it is literally none of our business. But with the militantly assertive religions, I'm not sure it's actually possible to be a sincere member and not have it influence your policies as a politician? Say the incident with the freedom of a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple came up in Scotland and she had to take a view. How could she not be influenced by being dubious about gay couples?
So, while respecting her honesty and her right to belief, I do think it's a genuine snag to being a national leader. By contrast, Hinduism has some odd beliefs, but in its British form it doesn't seem especially insistent on its followers pushing its teachings in every sphere. Humza will escape serious criticism on that count unless he can be found saying "As a Hindu, I have to oppose..."
The Ashers Bakery case was an issue more of free speech, rather than gay rights. Ultimately, that is how Lady Hale ruled on the case.
But, no doubt there would be tricky issues for Kate Forbes as FM.
Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.
Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:
I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….
The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.
50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less
Nothing better sums up the yearning of an occupied country. fighting for its identity that the conversion of the A9 into a dual carriageway. It's going to be the foundational epic of the new nation.
You need to remember that the Stone of Scone on which the unionists get so excited was actually a mediaeval drain manhole cover foisted off on Edward Longshanks.
Could do worse as a reminder of government priorities, I've always thought. It also explains why the Scots were so meh when the Tories got all excited about deigning to return it to Scotland. Never forgotten the Satrap in State trailing behind the hearse up the High Street in Edinburgh with the crowds silent except for the odd sarcastic remark or boo.
That's quite funny. I didn't realise they'd pulled one over on Edward I.
Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.
Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:
I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….
The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.
50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less
To be fair, that's a reasonable programme. Not that I think Scotland would enjoy the reality of independence, but the third point is sound in constitutional theory. She's right about the roads. The first point is fair enough as long as she's also thought about how to manage the transition when the oil runs out, which may not be that far away.
She may have crazy stuff, like hanging all Welshmen in the Highlands, to come out but I don't see how anyone could take serious issue with the published stuff.
Edited because I didn't want people to think I have no issue with hanging Welshmen...
Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph. Edit; not third.
Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.
And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.
Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
I think the "independent" pay boards have effectively collapsed. The NHS staff unions are not engaging with a fixed process that works to government rules. Want no strikes? Then must have payboards out of government control with staffside representatives.
Yes, I think that system has run out of road.
Like in the real world they should give them all inflation increases based on productivity , clear out of dross and sack the bottom 10% performers. That si what happens in the real world where money does not grow on trees.
But how would you survive Malc?
Given I am in top ten percent and earn as much as consultants I think I could manage. I would continue to buy the M&S tomato soup in single cans at the now much increased price of 65p. Worst case I could sleep in my Porsche.
Just on the dinosaurs and Forbes thing - there are literal dinosaur footprints on Skye, in her constituency.
If I were an enterprising journalist, I'd be doing a piece to camera from there this morning.
Dinosaurs? She didn't actually go there did she?
For all that I think she's scuppered her chances, I'd be sad if she dropped out. It might be that the membership as a whole want Forbes and they should get their say.
(Perfectly within her rights to withdraw, of course, but it would be a shame, I think.)
Port Moresby nearly impossible to reach. Maybe one of the Stans? Uzbekistan
Which parts of the Middle East have you been to? Jordan is supposed to be fun if you haven’t been.
Done Jordan. I’ve done Jordan so much I have slept in a car park in Amman. True story
Didn’t know we were both car park aficionados! Love a good car park me. I am only four away from parking in every NCP car park in Kent for at least two hours. The wife’s going to make me a nice steak as a reward when I’ve done them all. At the moment, though, there’s an argument about the Medway Unitary Authority. Does that count as Kent for these purposes? I say not but the wife insists it does and won’t buy the steak unless I park in all the NCPs in Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham. Personally I think it’s unfair - what next? Are we going to repeal the 1964 changes meaning I have to do Bromley and Bexley too? I think that would be unreasonable.
Admire you for doing Jordan though. How many car parks are there in Amman?
There are car parks in Amman? Last time I was there, cars were simply abandoned outside the destination, with little regard to whether they were double or even triple parked, nor whether they were blocking a main road full of traffic. It’s the only place I’ve ever been, where I didn’t want to drive. I ended up going around in the back of my customer’s rather nice S-Class. He didn’t like to drive either!
Leon said he slept in one. Nothing Leon says ever proves to be incorrect. Which is why you and I are the only two people left on Earth, eating insects in an post nuclear irradiated wasteland, cowering from super Covid infected AI bots, but at least Liz Truss surprised on the upside.
It's a true story. As are nearly all of my stories, if not all
I've had such a mad quirky life I have no need to make up shit
Story: I ended up in Amman, for various reasons, with no money but I did have a plane ticket out, to London. However when I got to Amman airport it turned out there was an exit visa. I had no cash for the exit visa. None. No cards. nothing. And no means of getting it quickly, either
In end I hitch hiked back to central Amman, and bedded down for the night on some old tarpaulins in what appeared to be a fairly unused car park. It was Amman, it was warm, I wasn't going to die. I actually slept quite well
I was however surprised when I woke up and heard a massive hubbub, I threw off the tarpaulin and realised I was sleeping in Amman's main weekend market, and I was surrounded by stall holders who looked at me astonished as I emerged from the tarps. And sauntered off
I hitch hiked back to the airport where a kindly American lady took such pity on me she simply gave me the exit visa (it was only about $50?), and thus I got home on the next available flight
Frankly, this is nothing compared to many other much madder border crossings I have done (or failed to do)
Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.
Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:
I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….
The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.
50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less
To be fair, that's a reasonable programme. Not that I think Scotland would enjoy the reality of independence, but the third point is sound in constitutional theory. She's right about the roads. The first point is fair enough as long as she's also thought about how to manage the transition when the oil runs out, which may not be that far away.
She may have crazy stuff, like hanging all Welshmen in the Highlands, to come out but I don't see how anyone could take serious issue with the published stuff.
Edited because I didn't want people to think I have no issue with hanging Welshmen...
Is that transporting all Welshmen to the Highlands for hanging? Or hanging Welshmen present in the Highlands?
I was starting to think Ashten seemed like the sane choice, but with either of those policies I fear I have to withdraw my support.
ETA: Although, of course, I might still be willing to serve in her cabinet.
I thought it was a straight membership vote, but Wiki says " ... candidates must have the nomination of at least 100 members, from at least 20 branches".
What does this mean? Have the three declared candidates already secured this first hurdle of nomination?
I double checked - the statement is on their Facebook page.
Not a surprise if you live in Scotland
I can't find any evidence of the "Muslim Council of the UK", and think it's an attempt to conflate with the Muslim Council of Britain.
Still digging into the Indian Council of Scotland, but they don't have a large online presence, at the very least.
The Indian Council of Scotland are on Facebook with 1k followers. As are the Muslim Council of the U.K. which appeared yesterday and has 3 followers….
Quite. Interesting to see how many PBers fell for that straight off.
Who fell for what exactly?
We are just sitting back watching the clownshow, as Candidate A hits herself in the face with a cake full of cuttlefish-spunk, and then Candidate B gets attacked by a dwarf dressed as a Zoroastrian donkey, and candidate C rules themselves out because they have 9 million quid resting in their Icelandic Tartan Bond ISA account, a fact known to Candidate D who is actually the ghost of Alex Salmond, living in Bermuda
No one has asked the candidates the vital question -
Wearing mixed cloth - is it heresy?
Tartan manufacturers through the land, paralysed with fear that their products will be labelled Unclean....
Never forgotten the Satrap in State trailing behind the hearse up the High Street in Edinburgh with the crowds silent except for the odd sarcastic remark or boo.
While it was sitting in the Great Hall at the Castle waiting for the ceremony to begin one of the BBC Cameramen sat on it
Cadets at the Moscow Police College have reported an attempt to forcibly mobilise them en masse under false pretences. They say they were locked in a hall while attempts were made to get them to sign up to join the army. They had to call the police to be released. https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1628319092645015554
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).
Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.
Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.
You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.
I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.
To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.
If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.
Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?
Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.
Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
The Ukranians have also got their hands on something new, hitting a large Russian ammo dump last night that would have been out of range of HIMARS.
They seem to be very good at lashing things together and making them work well.
Ukraine inherited quite a chunk of the USSR aerospace industry. Especially missiles. One reason that Russia has run out of various weapons is that they were made in Ukraine or important parts, such as engines, were.
Just on the dinosaurs and Forbes thing - there are literal dinosaur footprints on Skye, in her constituency.
If I were an enterprising journalist, I'd be doing a piece to camera from there this morning.
Dinosaurs? She didn't actually go there did she?
For all that I think she's scuppered her chances, I'd be sad if she dropped out. It might be that the membership as a whole want Forbes and they should get their say.
(Perfectly within her rights to withdraw, of course, but it would be a shame, I think.)
Yes, it'll be interesting to see how she does with the members.
Which PBers are members btw? Do we have many? Who are they voting for?
By contrast in 1959 only 45% would vote for an atheist
'Oct 1959: If the party of your choice nominated a generally well-qualified person as parliamentary candidate, would you vote for him/her if he/she were one of the following? Roman Catholic 82% Yes Woman 76% Jew 71% Coloured person 61% Atheist 45%'
Srill true in parts of the US, I think. A friend from Alabama deeply envies British culture for our indifference to the atheism of politicians. That said, I'm not sure how he'd feel about freedom to be very religious.
For those of us who like to think we have small-l liberal values, it's tricky territory to navigate. I feel that if Forbes keeps her religion entirely separate from her policies, then I don't care what she believes in - it is literally none of our business. But with the militantly assertive religions, I'm not sure it's actually possible to be a sincere member and not have it influence your policies as a politician? Say the incident with the freedom of a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple came up in Scotland and she had to take a view. How could she not be influenced by being dubious about gay couples?
So, while respecting her honesty and her right to belief, I do think it's a genuine snag to being a national leader. By contrast, Hinduism has some odd beliefs, but in its British form it doesn't seem especially insistent on its followers pushing its teachings in every sphere. Humza will escape serious criticism on that count unless he can be found saying "As a Hindu, I have to oppose..."
I thought it was a straight membership vote, but Wiki says " ... candidates must have the nomination of at least 100 members, from at least 20 branches".
What does this mean? Have the three declared candidates already secured this first hurdle of nomination?
It is rigged
Worth noting the SNP haven't had a leadership election since 2004? And that was basically a walk in for Salmond.
Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.
Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:
I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….
The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.
50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less
Nothing better sums up the yearning of an occupied country. fighting for its identity that the conversion of the A9 into a dual carriageway. It's going to be the foundational epic of the new nation.
You need to remember that the Stone of Scone on which the unionists get so excited was actually a mediaeval drain manhole cover foisted off on Edward Longshanks.
Could do worse as a reminder of government priorities, I've always thought. It also explains why the Scots were so meh when the Tories got all excited about deigning to return it to Scotland. Never forgotten the Satrap in State trailing behind the hearse up the High Street in Edinburgh with the crowds silent except for the odd sarcastic remark or boo.
That's quite funny. I didn't realise they'd pulled one over on Edward I.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).
Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.
Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.
You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.
I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.
To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.
If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.
Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?
Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.
Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
Just on the dinosaurs and Forbes thing - there are literal dinosaur footprints on Skye, in her constituency.
If I were an enterprising journalist, I'd be doing a piece to camera from there this morning.
Dinosaurs? She didn't actually go there did she?
For all that I think she's scuppered her chances, I'd be sad if she dropped out. It might be that the membership as a whole want Forbes and they should get their say.
(Perfectly within her rights to withdraw, of course, but it would be a shame, I think.)
Yes, it'll be interesting to see how she does with the members.
Which PBers are members btw? Do we have many? Who are they voting for?
Imagine Stuart , TUD and Fairlie and likely some lurkers and others who do not broadcast as Scottish.
By contrast in 1959 only 45% would vote for an atheist
'Oct 1959: If the party of your choice nominated a generally well-qualified person as parliamentary candidate, would you vote for him/her if he/she were one of the following? Roman Catholic 82% Yes Woman 76% Jew 71% Coloured person 61% Atheist 45%'
Srill true in parts of the US, I think. A friend from Alabama deeply envies British culture for our indifference to the atheism of politicians. That said, I'm not sure how he'd feel about freedom to be very religious.
For those of us who like to think we have small-l liberal values, it's tricky territory to navigate. I feel that if Forbes keeps her religion entirely separate from her policies, then I don't care what she believes in - it is literally none of our business. But with the militantly assertive religions, I'm not sure it's actually possible to be a sincere member and not have it influence your policies as a politician? Say the incident with the freedom of a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple came up in Scotland and she had to take a view. How could she not be influenced by being dubious about gay couples?
So, while respecting her honesty and her right to belief, I do think it's a genuine snag to being a national leader. By contrast, Hinduism has some odd beliefs, but in its British form it doesn't seem especially insistent on its followers pushing its teachings in every sphere. Humza will escape serious criticism on that count unless he can be found saying "As a Hindu, I have to oppose..."
Humza is Muslim though not Hindu
Which is why I suspect the brand new “Muslim Council of U.K.” was brought into being - so it didn’t come across as “Hindu vs Muslim”.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?
Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
I don’t want to go to war with them.
I just don’t think blaming one’s bigotry on one’s superstitions is admirable.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).
Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.
Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.
You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.
I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.
To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.
If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.
Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?
Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.
Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
Nope. No one suggested a ‘ban’ - that’s her supporters’ spin - just said that they wouldn’t vote for her as leader, and that it seems possible that a majority if SNP members won’t either.
And most are opining it’s quite likely she’ll get a ministerial post if not elected leader.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).
Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.
Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.
You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.
I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.
To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.
If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.
Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?
Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.
Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
I’m so bored I might go to Manila. Has anyone here ever been to Manila?
I hear it’s an absolute shit hole but at least it wouid. be different and interestingly violent
Much of Manila is a squalid Shithole. But you will be ok in Makati or in the Casino district near the airport. There are plenty of 4* and 5* hotels and plenty of freelance girls everywhere. Padre Burgos Street is where things get raunchy. If you are feeling brave (get yourself a personal driver) take an hours drive south to Tagaytay and Taal Volcano.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).
Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.
Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.
You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.
I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.
To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.
If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.
Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?
Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.
Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
Nope. No one suggested a ‘ban’ - that’s her supporters’ spin - just said that they wouldn’t vote for her as leader, and that it seems possible that a majority if SNP members won’t either.
And most are opining it’s quite likely she’ll get a ministerial post if not elected leader.
One of the more tedious recent developments (among some very strong competition) is the characterisation of being challenged and questioned as a ban, cancellation or silencing. That those doing it are some of the noisiest feckers around just adds to the tedium..
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
It’s not really that - though you get the strong impression they don’t really understand what they are writing about. And actually what distinguishes all the big tech powers from us is that they are countries which have a focus on advanced manufacturing. Something which we do only fitfully.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?
Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.
Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.
It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.
There is also the question of local politics. Do we ban people with religious views from holding power there? There are plenty of areas where allowing religious beliefs to influence politics has a very real effect e.g. education, social services etc.
@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.
Who wants to go first at saying that?
You seem to have missed my point. Despite disagreeing with her views, I am quite OK about Kate Fobes as a national politician.
I have no problem with similar views expressed by African Christians or Asian Muslims either.
All these views are fine as long as people respect the law and do not try to legislate their morality onto other people.
It isn't possible to keep belief, politics, morality, legislation, secularity, religion, worldview all is separate boxes.
Religion is merely a subsample of 'beliefs' generally. Certainty is so elusive that most of what we think are beliefs… ..Gay marriage is similar. Some people (a minority at the moment which Forbes and I are both in though we probably differ about most things) think that marriage is better defined such that it is only between one man and one woman, and that is objectively better for society. Genuine beliefs differ. Gosh. Fancy that.
If certainty is so elusive, how do you believe such a thing (which seems pretty daft to me, FWIW) objectively ?
Simples. It is a belief of mine that the physical world exists beyond my own mind and experience. It still exists even if I don't. Notoriously this is not provable to everyone's satisfaction (see Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant's first critique etc) though it is the Common Sense view of the world (eg the much ignored Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid and the man in the street).
Like almost everyone else except a small group of solipsists I have beliefs about what is the case in the world even if I were not in it. This is conventionally called 'beliefs about objectivity', or, as in Thomas Nagel's masterpiece 'The View from Nowhere'.
So, torturing children for fun would still be wrong even if I had never existed. I hope you believe the same. When I meet people who don't share this view I hide the children and lock up the spoons.
It is of course the world which is (I believe) objective. Not my beliefs, which of course can't be. And I never said they were.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
I want them all home. Doing life for the war crimes they committed. After conviction in a court, jury etc.
Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?
Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.
Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.
It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.
There is also the question of local politics. Do we ban people with religious views from holding power there? There are plenty of areas where allowing religious beliefs to influence politics has a very real effect e.g. education, social services etc.
@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.
Who wants to go first at saying that?
You seem to have missed my point. Despite disagreeing with her views, I am quite OK about Kate Fobes as a national politician.
I have no problem with similar views expressed by African Christians or Asian Muslims either.
All these views are fine as long as people respect the law and do not try to legislate their morality onto other people.
It isn't possible to keep belief, politics, morality, legislation, secularity, religion, worldview all is separate boxes.
Religion is merely a subsample of 'beliefs' generally. Certainty is so elusive that most of what we think are beliefs… ..Gay marriage is similar. Some people (a minority at the moment which Forbes and I are both in though we probably differ about most things) think that marriage is better defined such that it is only between one man and one woman, and that is objectively better for society. Genuine beliefs differ. Gosh. Fancy that.
If certainty is so elusive, how do you believe such a thing (which seems pretty daft to me, FWIW) objectively ?
Simples. It is a belief of mine that the physical world exists beyond my own mind and experience. It still exists even if I don't. Notoriously this is not provable to everyone's satisfaction (see Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant's first critique etc) though it is the Common Sense view of the world (eg the much ignored Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid and the man in the street).
Like almost everyone else except a small group of solipsists I have beliefs about what is the case in the world even if I were not in it. This is conventionally called 'beliefs about objectivity', or, as in Thomas Nagel's masterpiece 'The View from Nowhere'.
So, torturing children for fun would still be wrong even if I had never existed. I hope you believe the same. When I meet people who don't share this view I hide the children and lock up the spoons.
We’re not discussing that, though. You’re talking about a belief in hypotheticals.
What real world evidence we have suggests that gay marriage is a net benefit to society. You might believe we’re better without it, but there’s no objective evidence for that.
On topic: there is still so much that can change; not revival of Tories (I think that ship has sailed) but low turnout perhaps. I struggle to believe the Red Wall is back in love with Labour so soon. Corbyn has gone, sure, but I’m still not sure the Labour Party is speaking the language of the average voter. I hope that changes.
FPT: @ping this was excellent-thought provoking and depressing. The point about Putin wanting rid of the oligarchs was new to me and made me think perhaps (a faction within) Russia blew up Nordstream as a way to break the power of the oligarchs in favour of the pivot to the global south that is discussed. Much to consider, thanks for sharing
Cheek of Putin, saying he didn't start the war. He invaded Ukraine! Did anyone ask him to do that? No.
The Kaiser suffered similar delusions.
As did the Confederacy.
Aggressors saying ‘it was all the victims’ fault’ is nothing new. Doesn’t just apply to war either.
Indeed. But this one is pretty clearcut as far as wars go imo. There's usually a bit more 'on the one hand but then again otoh' musing that one can respectably do.
I broadly agree. The ambiguous question, for me (and for the analysts and strategists, western politicians and, probably ultimately the Ukrainians) is Crimea.
I posted this in the early hours. I’d strongly recommend that the more thoughtful PBers/lurkers give it 45 minutes, or so, of their time;
—
Interview with Robert Papp (former senior CIA bod) on Russia/Ukraine;
He makes some excellent points, including a couple that I’ve raised, cf; The absurd (and totally counterproductive) media / popular backlash against anything Russian / culture / literature etc etc, here in the th West.
Thanks. Saw that in the early hours, meant to save it and then fell asleep 😴
The DUP and ERG will rebel, and Starmer will have to clear up this moment.
The DUP hold a veto on Stormont resuming.
If the proposed deal hasn't got them on side, then its not a deal, just as if a proposed deal didn't have Sinn Fein on side.
That's the whole frigging point of the Good Friday Agreement. Either both sides of the divide are happy, or nothing happens.
I have a solution to the impasse.
Hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on the new deal.
Will of the people and all that jazz.
So you wish to abolish the Good Friday Agreement?
The 'will of the people' doesn't apply in NI, due to the Good Friday Agreement which negotiated that the majority couldn't oppress the minority. Can you confirm you want the Good Friday Agreement to be repealed?
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).
Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.
Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.
You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.
I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.
To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.
If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.
Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?
Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.
Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).
Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.
Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.
You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.
I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.
To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.
If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.
Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?
Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.
Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
Nope. No one suggested a ‘ban’ - that’s her supporters’ spin - just said that they wouldn’t vote for her as leader, and that it seems possible that a majority if SNP members won’t either.
And most are opining it’s quite likely she’ll get a ministerial post if not elected leader.
Just replied to @BartholomewRoberts as to why that argument is nothing but a smokescreen.
Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?
Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.
Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.
It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.
There is also the question of local politics. Do we ban people with religious views from holding power there? There are plenty of areas where allowing religious beliefs to influence politics has a very real effect e.g. education, social services etc.
@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.
Who wants to go first at saying that?
You seem to have missed my point. Despite disagreeing with her views, I am quite OK about Kate Fobes as a national politician.
I have no problem with similar views expressed by African Christians or Asian Muslims either.
All these views are fine as long as people respect the law and do not try to legislate their morality onto other people.
It isn't possible to keep belief, politics, morality, legislation, secularity, religion, worldview all is separate boxes.
Religion is merely a subsample of 'beliefs' generally. Certainty is so elusive that most of what we think are beliefs… ..Gay marriage is similar. Some people (a minority at the moment which Forbes and I are both in though we probably differ about most things) think that marriage is better defined such that it is only between one man and one woman, and that is objectively better for society. Genuine beliefs differ. Gosh. Fancy that.
If certainty is so elusive, how do you believe such a thing (which seems pretty daft to me, FWIW) objectively ?
Simples. It is a belief of mine that the physical world exists beyond my own mind and experience. It still exists even if I don't. Notoriously this is not provable to everyone's satisfaction (see Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant's first critique etc) though it is the Common Sense view of the world (eg the much ignored Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid and the man in the street).
Like almost everyone else except a small group of solipsists I have beliefs about what is the case in the world even if I were not in it. This is conventionally called 'beliefs about objectivity', or, as in Thomas Nagel's masterpiece 'The View from Nowhere'.
So, torturing children for fun would still be wrong even if I had never existed. I hope you believe the same. When I meet people who don't share this view I hide the children and lock up the spoons.
We’re not discussing that, though. You’re talking about a belief in hypotheticals.
What real world evidence we have suggests that gay marriage is a net benefit to society. You might believe we’re better without it, but there’s no objective evidence for that.
As for the grounds for thinking that there is a case for confining the concept 'marriage' to one man and one woman, that is a discussion aired here a few days ago including by me. I have no plans to revisit it now thanks. Yes, in the western world at this moment I am in a small minority.
On topic: there is still so much that can change; not revival of Tories (I think that ship has sailed) but low turnout perhaps. I struggle to believe the Red Wall is back in love with Labour so soon. Corbyn has gone, sure, but I’m still not sure the Labour Party is speaking the language of the average voter. I hope that changes.
FPT: @ping this was excellent-thought provoking and depressing. The point about Putin wanting rid of the oligarchs was new to me and made me think perhaps (a faction within) Russia blew up Nordstream as a way to break the power of the oligarchs in favour of the pivot to the global south that is discussed. Much to consider, thanks for sharing
Cheek of Putin, saying he didn't start the war. He invaded Ukraine! Did anyone ask him to do that? No.
The Kaiser suffered similar delusions.
As did the Confederacy.
Aggressors saying ‘it was all the victims’ fault’ is nothing new. Doesn’t just apply to war either.
Indeed. But this one is pretty clearcut as far as wars go imo. There's usually a bit more 'on the one hand but then again otoh' musing that one can respectably do.
I broadly agree. The ambiguous question, for me (and for the analysts and strategists, western politicians and, probably ultimately the Ukrainians) is Crimea.
I posted this in the early hours. I’d strongly recommend that the more thoughtful PBers/lurkers give it 45 minutes, or so, of their time;
—
Interview with Robert Papp (former senior CIA bod) on Russia/Ukraine;
He makes some excellent points, including a couple that I’ve raised, cf; The absurd (and totally counterproductive) media / popular backlash against anything Russian / culture / literature etc etc, here in the th West.
Thanks. Saw that in the early hours, meant to save it and then fell asleep 😴
Putin and the oligarchs is more complex than that - he killed and imprisoned a few, but made the rest his henchmen.
Perhaps because his system is a pyramid of strongmen. If he wiped out all the oligarchs, he would need people to replace them. Who would look remarkably like...
See Ivan the Terrible and the Boyars.
Another thing which didn't really get enough depth in the podcast was the de-modernistion of the Russian Army. The massed combined arms force is now largely infantry and artillery. Aircraft are rare and first the high end armoured vehicles disappeared, now the older stuff is running low. Artillery ammunition is rationed. Classic broken backed warfare, from the literature.
Comments
Although if you drive that slowly be prepared to be overtaken by all the locals.
So, yet another leadership election before the next GE ... this time of Llafur.
It is quite conceivable that we end up with Sunak as PM, Yousaf as FM of Scotland and Gething as FM of Wales.
Which would be progress on at least one front ... though possibly not the competence front.
If I were an enterprising journalist, I'd be doing a piece to camera from there this morning.
However you probably can't be elected PM now if you follow all the Bible or the Koran so strictly you openly oppose homosexual marriage or you want to ban abortion completely. The same applies to FM of Scotland, hence Forbes' problems.
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/20103467.douglas-ross-told-resign-indian-council-scotland/
The “Muslim Council of UK” seems dodgy as heck, but the Indian Council has been around a while and Yousuf has behaved questionably over the Nursery case.
We are just sitting back watching the clownshow, as Candidate A hits herself in the face with a cake full of cuttlefish-spunk, and then Candidate B gets attacked by a dwarf dressed as a Zoroastrian donkey, and candidate C rules themselves out because they have 9 million quid resting in their Icelandic Tartan Bond ISA account, a fact known to Candidate D who is actually the ghost of Alex Salmond, living in Bermuda
For those of us who like to think we have small-l liberal values, it's tricky territory to navigate. I feel that if Forbes keeps her religion entirely separate from her policies, then I don't care what she believes in - it is literally none of our business. But with the militantly assertive religions, I'm not sure it's actually possible to be a sincere member and not have it influence your policies as a politician? Say the incident with the freedom of a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple came up in Scotland and she had to take a view. How could she not be influenced by being dubious about gay couples?
So, while respecting her honesty and her right to belief, I do think it's a genuine snag to being a national leader. By contrast, Hinduism has some odd beliefs, but in its British form it doesn't seem especially insistent on its followers pushing its teachings in every sphere. Humza will escape serious criticism on that count unless he can be found saying "As a Hindu, I have to oppose..."
Could do worse as a reminder of government priorities, I've always thought. It also explains why the Scots were so meh when the Tories got all excited about deigning to return it to Scotland. Never forgotten the Satrap in State trailing behind the hearse up the High Street in Edinburgh with the crowds silent except for the odd sarcastic remark or boo.
I really must get some work done.
But, no doubt there would be tricky issues for Kate Forbes as FM.
That's quite funny. I didn't realise they'd pulled one over on Edward I.
For all that I think she's scuppered her chances, I'd be sad if she dropped out. It might be that the membership as a whole want Forbes and they should get their say.
(Perfectly within her rights to withdraw, of course, but it would be a shame, I think.)
I've had such a mad quirky life I have no need to make up shit
Story: I ended up in Amman, for various reasons, with no money but I did have a plane ticket out, to London. However when I got to Amman airport it turned out there was an exit visa. I had no cash for the exit visa. None. No cards. nothing. And no means of getting it quickly, either
In end I hitch hiked back to central Amman, and bedded down for the night on some old tarpaulins in what appeared to be a fairly unused car park. It was Amman, it was warm, I wasn't going to die. I actually slept quite well
I was however surprised when I woke up and heard a massive hubbub, I threw off the tarpaulin and realised I was sleeping in Amman's main weekend market, and I was surrounded by stall holders who looked at me astonished as I emerged from the tarps. And sauntered off
I hitch hiked back to the airport where a kindly American lady took such pity on me she simply gave me the exit visa (it was only about $50?), and thus I got home on the next available flight
Frankly, this is nothing compared to many other much madder border crossings I have done (or failed to do)
Crossing war torn Yugoslavia was an adventure
I was starting to think Ashten seemed like the sane choice, but with either of those policies I fear I have to withdraw my support.
ETA: Although, of course, I might still be willing to serve in her cabinet.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/22/russia-ukraine-war-latest-news-putin-biden-treaty-nato/
The Ukranians have also got their hands on something new, hitting a large Russian ammo dump last night that would have been out of range of HIMARS.
Wearing mixed cloth - is it heresy?
Tartan manufacturers through the land, paralysed with fear that their products will be labelled Unclean....
His Mighty Weapon didn't work?
https://youtu.be/Yh6kbQnOAg4?t=30
https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1628319092645015554
Vivek Ramaswamy, 37, has made a name for himself in right-wing circles by opposing corporate efforts to advance political, social and environmental causes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/us/politics/vivek-ramaswamy-presidential-candidate-2024.html
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
Which PBers are members btw? Do we have many? Who are they voting for?
The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
A New National Purpose: Innovation Can Power the Future of Britain
https://institute.global/policy/new-national-purpose-innovation-can-power-future-britain
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
Given that power in government is from the money - a Finance minister has serious control over policy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
I just don’t think blaming one’s bigotry on one’s superstitions is admirable.
No one suggested a ‘ban’ - that’s her supporters’ spin - just said that they wouldn’t vote for her as leader, and that it seems possible that a majority if SNP members won’t either.
And most are opining it’s quite likely she’ll get a ministerial post if not elected leader.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
NI Protocol update: I understand the deal was basically done last weekend, all the technical stuff included (give or take a few loose ends with text).
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1628328544282505219?s=20
And actually what distinguishes all the big tech powers from us is that they are countries which have a focus on advanced manufacturing. Something which we do only fitfully.
I will absolutely unite the SNP under my leadership.
I've even bought some new shoes for my leadership launch event.
Like almost everyone else except a small group of solipsists I have beliefs about what is the case in the world even if I were not in it. This is conventionally called 'beliefs about objectivity', or, as in Thomas Nagel's masterpiece 'The View from Nowhere'.
So, torturing children for fun would still be wrong even if I had never existed. I hope you believe the same. When I meet people who don't share this view I hide the children and lock up the spoons.
It is of course the world which is (I believe) objective. Not my beliefs, which of course can't be. And I never said they were.
The DUP and ERG will rebel, and Starmer will have to clear up this moment.
If the proposed deal hasn't got them on side, then its not a deal, just as if a proposed deal didn't have Sinn Fein on side.
That's the whole frigging point of the Good Friday Agreement. Either both sides of the divide are happy, or nothing happens.
Hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on the new deal.
Will of the people and all that jazz.
You’re talking about a belief in hypotheticals.
What real world evidence we have suggests that gay marriage is a net benefit to society.
You might believe we’re better without it, but there’s no objective evidence for that.
FPT: @ping this was excellent-thought provoking and depressing. The point about Putin wanting rid of the oligarchs was new to me and made me think perhaps (a faction within) Russia blew up Nordstream as a way to break the power of the oligarchs in favour of the pivot to the global south that is discussed. Much to consider, thanks for sharing
Wrong decision.
The 'will of the people' doesn't apply in NI, due to the Good Friday Agreement which negotiated that the majority couldn't oppress the minority. Can you confirm you want the Good Friday Agreement to be repealed?
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
Such shithousery from the Welsh must be punished.
Biden leaving until the last moment to decide not to run would be suboptimal for the Democrats.
Bidenworld chatters that Joe may not run
The president no longer seems absolutely certain to go for a second term, leaving the party, his top aides and potential candidates unsure about ‘24 and very quietly mulling Plans B.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/22/bidenworld-joe-may-not-run-2024-00083905
Perhaps because his system is a pyramid of strongmen. If he wiped out all the oligarchs, he would need people to replace them. Who would look remarkably like...
See Ivan the Terrible and the Boyars.
Another thing which didn't really get enough depth in the podcast was the de-modernistion of the Russian Army. The massed combined arms force is now largely infantry and artillery. Aircraft are rare and first the high end armoured vehicles disappeared, now the older stuff is running low. Artillery ammunition is rationed. Classic broken backed warfare, from the literature.