Kate Forbes is the most popular candidate to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister despite the row over her religious beliefs, a poll of SNP supporters has found.
Scots who voted for the Nationalists at the 2021 Holyrood election were questioned on who they think should replace her as party leader - with almost a third (31 per cent) of those questioned said they do not yet know who to back.
But 28 per cent said they support Forbes - putting her ahead of rivals Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan, who polled 20 per cent and seven per cent respectively.
For Labour read SNP, for Jezbollah read Kate Forbes. Are the members going to impose Forbes over the wishes of the MSPs who largely don't want her?
That would be fun!
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader and a faction join with Labour and the Greens to vote Anas Sarwar in as FM, I do hope that two eventualities have been foreseen and planned for:
1) Actual rioting in Scotland; 2) The acute international shortages of popcorn.
Join with Labour? Can't see it. We would get a 4th pro-independence group. Forbes running a government now reliant on Green and RealSNP votes to get anything through. At which point her pro-business go for growth policies would be in serious trouble as the absolutists prefer starving things of money and blaming Westminster.
Our favourite cheddar is Black bomber from Snowdonia. It is the highest selling cheese in our local cheese shop. Welsh cheesemaking is pretty strong already.
My favorite too, David. Didn't know it came from Snowdonia though.
As I say, what we have here is a clash of two religions. One of them is full of sanctimonious, swivel-eyed moral scolds, rooting out heresy and trying to indoctrinate everybody into their fantastic way of thinking. The other is a branch of Calvinism. One of them asks “what would Jesus do?” and the other “what would Owen Jones think?”. Faced with a choice between their representatives on earth, I know which kind I would prefer to see in high office.
Typical hyperbolic bullshit. Some people have said they won't support Forbes's bid to be leader of the SNP, and this is called 'crucifixion'.
I know who I would describe as 'swivel-eyed'.
Did you bother to read the article or did the opening humour derail you straight into splenetic rage? The more pertinent question, though, is whether the religious or philosophical beliefs of a politician are relevant to their suitability for office, and especially when the office in question is leader.
Generally speaking, I don’t see why they aren’t — quite the contrary. The farming industry might reasonably be concerned if a vegan became Secretary of State at Defra. The Equality Act protects the philosophical beliefs of spiritualist psychics, but if a would-be prime minister claimed he could see into the future, voters might worry. And in both cases, the assurance that the beliefs in question were “personal” wouldn’t be much consolation — after all, they are still beliefs, involving a distinctive way of looking at the world that by definition can’t be switched off at will. Where a person appears to be able to leave his personal beliefs at home — as Forbes’ rival Humza Yousaf implies he can with Islam — then arguably, he doesn’t have very strong beliefs in the first place.
Yes, the rest of the article is also dishonest horseshit.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
It’s been a warm winter in Europe but not that warm.
December +0.9C above the long term average: that’s around or a little under par for what we’d expect based on the regional warming trend, but there was a North-South divide with the colder weather in the industrialised North. Not ideal for gas usage.
January +2.2C above LTA: that is very warm, 3rd warmest in the series for the continent and a degree above globally warmed par (European winter is warming much more rapidly than the global annual mean). Most of the warmth in the East.
February so far more similar to December but with milder weather in the NW and colder in the East.
It’s quite possible next winter could be similar or warmer. We are in a warming world. I do wonder whether Russian planners made assumptions on European gas needs based on 20th century averages. They seem like the sort to be climate change deniers.
Next winter will be an El Niño winter. That tends to mean a higher tendency to cold blocked weather in the late winter. We’ll see.
’Prince Andrew Threatening To Write Bombshell Tell-All About King Charles Unless His Royal Paychecks Are Reinstated’
“People thought Prince Harry’s memoir was bad. But what Andrew can reveal about certain members of his family would blow the lid off!” spilled an insider.
Sources said vengeful Andrew may even address long-standing rumors about the kings’ flings with other men — more than six years after Charles, 74, was spotted puckering up with a much younger guy!
“He could uncover details about this father Prince Philip’s ties to Hitler’s Nazi regime, and he wouldn’t be unwilling to spill the darkest secrets held by his own mother, Queen Elizabeth!”
It used to be fairly easy to listen to TMS abroad, with even the BBC advising how to do it sometimes. But now it seems like they've made it much more difficult.
Is TMS or any other BBC outlet commentating on this test? I could find only the text commentary earlier.
TalkSport bought the rights for this series. They've tended to outbid the BBC for the rights to England's overseas tours of the smaller Test nations. I'd expect the BBC to make more of an effort to secure the rights for the tour of India.
Once again this morning, for some reason, I find that I do not have a recording of last night's play and BT Sport doesn't even have a highlights package available (possibly because it might have to be 2 hours long). I really, really despise their coverage of the cricket, its awful. Please Sky, buy the rights back.
Drought watch extending across much of England. We’re going to need a hell of a lot of rain in March and April to avoid serious restrictions come the summer. The only consolation is knowing what a fine bunch of people there are running our water supplies - and just how brilliantly talented the Environment Secretary is. We can count on them to make all the right calls and, crucially, to be planning now to mitigate the effects of the low rainfall.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
So Muslims aren't allowed to vote with their conscience and be a party leader now anymore than evangelical Christians are apparently?
I support homosexual marriage but I also don't see why ultra secular social liberals should tell the strongly religious how they should vote either
They can vote how they want, but people are entitled not to vote for them to lead their party as a result. I am against the monarchy but I would understand if you said you wouldn't vote for a Tory leadership candidate who would vote to abolish the monarchy.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
I have two copies of the Penguin Atlas of Recent History, by Colin McEvedy.
Why two?
Because in the 1982 version, McEvedy said: "What had been greeted as peace quickly changed into an era of 'Cold War'. And so it has continued for the last thirty years. Stalin's successors have tried to appear less cold-blooded than he, but under pressure -- as when the Hungarians tried to leave the Soviet camp in 1956 or, twelve years later when the Czechs tried to liberalize their regime -- they have reacted every bit as ruthlessly. The ideological gulf has remained unbridged: There has been detente, but no rapprochement.
Whether this situation is comfortable or not, it is certainly stable." (p. 88)
That flat statement made me wonder whether, in the 2002 edition (which has "New" added to the title), McEvedy admitted he had been wrong.
He didn't.
(Full disclosure: By 1982, as incurable optimist, I believed that the Soviet regime would collapse of its own internal contradictions, but I did not expect it to happen nearly as soon as it did.
I think Putin's kleptocratic oligarchy will also collapse, but have no idea when that will happen.)
I can remember how surprised everyone was when communism collapsed in 1989 and 1991 even though I was only about 10 / 12 years old at the time.
Things seemed very stable until they didn’t
People in the Soviet Union generally thought that the whole grey edifice would put last them. Even those who worked at a certain level in the system had no idea that it was getting more and more hollow. My stepmother worked at a research facility for the Soviet Navy - she said that no one she knew thought the system would fall. Even those who hated it actively (like her) thought that it would stagger on 1984 style.
It used to be fairly easy to listen to TMS abroad, with even the BBC advising how to do it sometimes. But now it seems like they've made it much more difficult.
Is TMS or any other BBC outlet commentating on this test? I could find only the text commentary earlier.
TalkSport bought the rights for this series. They've tended to outbid the BBC for the rights to England's overseas tours of the smaller Test nations. I'd expect the BBC to make more of an effort to secure the rights for the tour of India.
Once again this morning, for some reason, I find that I do not have a recording of last night's play and BT Sport doesn't even have a highlights package available (possibly because it might have to be 2 hours long). I really, really despise their coverage of the cricket, its awful. Please Sky, buy the rights back.
BT Sport changing to TNT Sport later in the year so could see some improvement regardless.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
All I said was there are millions of people inside the borders of Ukraine with Moldovan, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian identities - which is true. I made no specific claim about the demographics of any individual oblast.
It may be true, but it might also be essentially redundant. Zelenskyy himself grew up as a Russian speaker, as did many other Ukrainians fighting Russia. It is perfectly possible to hold multiple identities; in the same way I see myself as both English and British. If I wanted, I'd probably add 'barely human' as an identity I hold as well.
Your argument also seems rather fanciful as the appetite to beat the Russians does not seem to be massively weak amongst the Ukrainians. True, we might be getting biased media coverage over here, but the will to fight amongst the Ukrainians seems strong, regardless of their underlying ethnicity, or even religion.
The hilarious thing about this war (and there is precious little to find humorous in this tragedy) is that Russia's invasions in 2014 and 2022 have created a Ukrainian founding legend. Before this, Ukraine in modern times has always been the victim, fought over by those to the west and the east, split, divided and reformed by outside actors. In this war, they're creating a mythos that may well unite these disparate peoples.
Their grandparents may have come from Russia, or Crimea, or Poland, or Romanian; but *they* are Ukrainian.
I think this so. Ethnicity isn't insignificant in national identity, but it isn't the same by a long stretch.
Who would argue that our Prime Minister or Home Secretary are not British, or for that matter Ed Miliband, or The Royal Family?
And just because they speak English as a first language, Irish people are unlikely to support an English invasion to liberate them.
When given a free vote, every oblast voted to be independent Ukraine. There has been some ethnic cleansing since, but this was the starting position.
The argument, which I think is right, also has relevance for the future of the UK.
Just because people identify themselves as "Catholic" in NI does not necessarily mean they want to join the Republic. For some, avoiding the disruption that would ensue or keeping access to British subsidies and the British welfare state is much more important.
So we're stuck with that worthless embarrassment of a province for a while yet, I'm afraid.
Sure, and ditto for the Protestants in reverse. The growing vote of the Alliance party which is fairly agnostic as to national destiny shows this.
It used to be fairly easy to listen to TMS abroad, with even the BBC advising how to do it sometimes. But now it seems like they've made it much more difficult.
Is TMS or any other BBC outlet commentating on this test? I could find only the text commentary earlier.
TalkSport bought the rights for this series. They've tended to outbid the BBC for the rights to England's overseas tours of the smaller Test nations. I'd expect the BBC to make more of an effort to secure the rights for the tour of India.
Once again this morning, for some reason, I find that I do not have a recording of last night's play and BT Sport doesn't even have a highlights package available (possibly because it might have to be 2 hours long). I really, really despise their coverage of the cricket, its awful. Please Sky, buy the rights back.
BT Sport changing to TNT Sport later in the year so could see some improvement regardless.
Why do I suspect that this is going to cost me even more money? This "we must have competition in sports rights" philosophy, has completely failed to give any benefits to sports fans who have to pay ever more subscriptions for what they used to get in one place. A complete failure to understand the market.
The scale of the casualties is already very sad. The war needs ending urgently. Instead it will grind on.
It seems there are the following outcomes
1. The Russian army is defeated, Putin is ousted and the Russian state collapses.
2. The West loses interest, the flow of arms to Ukraine slows, Ukraine is defeated and the Ukrainian state collapses.
3. The war has no end, but simmers at a lowish level for a decade or more.
4. The war ends in a year or two with stalemate and an armistice with concessions on both sides.
5. There is an escalation to nuclear, and then God knows ...
I'd hesitate to put probabilities on all these. My guess -- in order of decreasing likelihood -- is 3, 4, 2, 5, 1.
I'd also say that 1 -- the 'Boris solution' strongly endorsed by PB -- is one of the most dangerous outcomes of all.
How is 1 more dangerous than 5?
I think we don't get to 1 without 5.
So, 1 is 5 doubleplus.
But, whether you agree or not, I think probabilities of outcome is a useful way to understand the risks we are all facing with this war.
All of these outcomes have some reasonable probability of actually happening.
There's a reasonable possibility that Putin has a heart attack or other health issue, too. Let's not forget, he is not a young man, and this war might be a tad stressful.
The imminent death of Putin has been confidently predicted on pb.com for a year.
And if it happens, I suspect it might be more dangerous still.
Putin will not be replaced by Ed Daveykov. He will most likely be replaced by another pro-war nationalist.
You know that he will - at some point - die, right?
That's true of all of us.
He's in his 70s. In a stressful job. The actuarial tables would suggest it's non-negligble.
But ultimately, your argument is specious:
"What, you think if Hitler goes, he's going to be replaced by some democrat?"
My argument is a very simple one.
We have a very unpredictable war.
You should not fool yourself that what you want to happen will happen, You should not fool yourself that what you think is right will happen.
And you should not speak a lot of wank about "nuclear willies" flippantly on a public forum, even if it is your own.
You should write down a list of outcomes and try assess how probable each outcome is.
First, it is a useful intellectual exercise to consider all possible outcomes (I listed 5 and there are more).
Second, you can use it as a basis for taking a sensible decision for what your actions should be.
And you need to stop thinking that the next five minutes are all that matters.
If nuclear blackmail works then sure, you've survived this crisis, but you've made another one much more likely.
That is why, even though there is a risk of nuclear annihalition, standing up to naked aggression and standing up to - yes - evil is necessary.
In your mind, you see the Eastern Ukrainians as secretly Russian, and secretly desirous of Russian victory. This delusion, and it is a delusion, leads you into all kinds of false equivalance, and leads you to support a regime doing terrible, terrible things on our doorstep.
If we don't stand up to this, we ensure that there will be a next time.
You somehow think me dangerous, when it is your appeasement that is the true danger. War may be unpredictable, but rewarding unchecked aggression is pretty much guaranteed to have suboptimal outcomes.
All I have done is point out that there is a Russian population in Eastern Ukraine.
There are many different ethnic populations in Ukraine all of whom were added to it without their consent.
Lenin added the eastern Russian provinces in the 1920s after the civil war. Stalin put the previously Polish western provinces (Lviv, etc.) into Ukraine after WW2. To shut Krushchev up Stalin added Chernivitsi which was previously Romanian. Krushchev still wouldn't shut the fuck up so Stalin added the Odessa oblast to Ukraine. Stalin took Transcarpathia from Hungary and lego'ed that on to Ukraine after WW2 but that appears to be his own idea. When Krushchev took over he transferred Crimea to Ukraine.
So you've got millions of people who identified as Russian, Hungarian, Moldovan and Romanian being forcibly added to Ukraine without consultation or consent. This all held together when they were part of the Soviet Union but without that central dominance it was inevitably going to fall apart in bloody and spectacular fashion.
I question your use of 'inevitable', given its only fallen apart in bloody and spectacular fashion as a result of external invasion.
Yes there was clearly some major issues arising even without that invasion in 2014 hence why there was support in areas like Crimea in particular, but your post seems to presume it would be just as bad even without it and I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion.
There are surely degrees of internal tensions, all countries are artificial when you get right down to it and rarely have 100% support for their existence, and even in places with significant tensions or artificiality do not 'inevitably' fall apart in so bloody a way. Without outside help.
There is also the evidence of various votes and opinion polls that strongly suggest that a Ukraine isn’t held together by force.
Head vabariigi iseseisvuspäeva! Happy Estonian Independence Day!
It is one year since I stood outside the Estonian Parliament for the traditional raising of the national flag from Tall Hermann tower. Looking at the young fraternities gathered with their flags, I was very sure that Estonia too would soon be facing the aggression of the criminal Russian regime. A tragic and dark day.
5 eyes intelligence had been clear: an all out invasion was going to happen, and Putin´s goals included- and still include- "restoration" of Russian imperial power across Europe, even to the Atlantic. Yet there was one Western intelligence failure: we all underestimated the guts of the Ukrainian armed forces, the ZSU, and its President and people.
One year on, Estonia, and indeed all the front line states against Russia, knows that Ukraine saved us.
Estonia used that time to prepare itself, should that "delayed" onslaught ever be unleashed, but equally the determination of Kaja Kallas, the Estonian Prime Minister, and the whole country, is that Ukraine shall stand. Over 40,000 Ukrainian refugees are here, and per capita, Estonia leads the table of assistance given to Kyiv.
Estonia now believes that Ukraine can ultimately defeat Russia. Indeed defeat for Putin cannot be optional: the monstrous evil that has unleashed a totally unprovoked war against a peaceful (even sleepy) democratic neighbour will stop at nothing. The war has been marked by a brutality- child rape and torture and the murder of innocent civilians- that stands high in the catalogue of human crime. Yes, Putin could even overtake Hitler, Stalin or Mao as the Human race´s greatest murderer, were he to unleash his nuclear arsenal. The fact that this is even possible, is why Russia must be defeated and either restored to the ranks of civilized nations or destroyed.
Nor is it hubris to point out that the criminal regime in the Moscow Kremlin is a brittle and weak government. There are protests in Russia and an entire generation of well educated young men have walked away from Putinism. The brutality of operations in Ukraine reflects a primitive and weak system of government and a corrupt and incompetent high command. The splits between the thuggish Wagnerite, Progrozhin, the dimwitted homunculus, Kadyrov, and the bovine Putin loyalist, Shoigu, will be battle lines of a civil war as Putin´s power inevitably drains away. The return of the meat grinder has destroyed Wagner and is destroying even "elite" units that are not the poorly trained sweepings of Russian jails.
With new equipment and better training, the ZSU can return to winning ways as snow and mud gives way to the drier summer. So after the tragedy of one year ago, we look to the future with hope, thanks to the courage of Ukraine.
Glory to Ukraine, To the Heroes, Glory! Слава Україні! Героям Слава!
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
All I said was there are millions of people inside the borders of Ukraine with Moldovan, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian identities - which is true. I made no specific claim about the demographics of any individual oblast.
It may be true, but it might also be essentially redundant. Zelenskyy himself grew up as a Russian speaker, as did many other Ukrainians fighting Russia. It is perfectly possible to hold multiple identities; in the same way I see myself as both English and British. If I wanted, I'd probably add 'barely human' as an identity I hold as well.
Your argument also seems rather fanciful as the appetite to beat the Russians does not seem to be massively weak amongst the Ukrainians. True, we might be getting biased media coverage over here, but the will to fight amongst the Ukrainians seems strong, regardless of their underlying ethnicity, or even religion.
The hilarious thing about this war (and there is precious little to find humorous in this tragedy) is that Russia's invasions in 2014 and 2022 have created a Ukrainian founding legend. Before this, Ukraine in modern times has always been the victim, fought over by those to the west and the east, split, divided and reformed by outside actors. In this war, they're creating a mythos that may well unite these disparate peoples.
Their grandparents may have come from Russia, or Crimea, or Poland, or Romanian; but *they* are Ukrainian.
I think this so. Ethnicity isn't insignificant in national identity, but it isn't the same by a long stretch.
Who would argue that our Prime Minister or Home Secretary are not British, or for that matter Ed Miliband, or The Royal Family?
And just because they speak English as a first language, Irish people are unlikely to support an English invasion to liberate them.
When given a free vote, every oblast voted to be independent Ukraine. There has been some ethnic cleansing since, but this was the starting position.
The argument, which I think is right, also has relevance for the future of the UK.
Just because people identify themselves as "Catholic" in NI does not necessarily mean they want to join the Republic. For some, avoiding the disruption that would ensue or keeping access to British subsidies and the British welfare state is much more important.
So we're stuck with that worthless embarrassment of a province for a while yet, I'm afraid.
If speaking a language means that you *must* want to belong to the originating country, a couple of Empires need to come back.
’Prince Andrew Threatening To Write Bombshell Tell-All About King Charles Unless His Royal Paychecks Are Reinstated’
“People thought Prince Harry’s memoir was bad. But what Andrew can reveal about certain members of his family would blow the lid off!” spilled an insider.
Sources said vengeful Andrew may even address long-standing rumors about the kings’ flings with other men — more than six years after Charles, 74, was spotted puckering up with a much younger guy!
“He could uncover details about this father Prince Philip’s ties to Hitler’s Nazi regime, and he wouldn’t be unwilling to spill the darkest secrets held by his own mother, Queen Elizabeth!”
It used to be fairly easy to listen to TMS abroad, with even the BBC advising how to do it sometimes. But now it seems like they've made it much more difficult.
Is TMS or any other BBC outlet commentating on this test? I could find only the text commentary earlier.
TalkSport bought the rights for this series. They've tended to outbid the BBC for the rights to England's overseas tours of the smaller Test nations. I'd expect the BBC to make more of an effort to secure the rights for the tour of India.
Once again this morning, for some reason, I find that I do not have a recording of last night's play and BT Sport doesn't even have a highlights package available (possibly because it might have to be 2 hours long). I really, really despise their coverage of the cricket, its awful. Please Sky, buy the rights back.
BT Sport changing to TNT Sport later in the year so could see some improvement regardless.
Why do I suspect that this is going to cost me even more money? This "we must have competition in sports rights" philosophy, has completely failed to give any benefits to sports fans who have to pay ever more subscriptions for what they used to get in one place. A complete failure to understand the market.
Owned by Warner Bros and on Discovery Plus platform. No info on pricing yet, at a guess will be more in a combined package with broadband and cheaper for those buying it standalone.
On competition in sports rights generally, I would be happy with there being less of a free market, but one clear benefit for sports fans, and to a small extent the UK economy, is the strength of the Premier League.
It will be interesting to see how an openly right wing, socially conservative, SNP get on.
I am not sure that Forbes is "openly right wing". She was the Finance Minister in Nicola's Socialist republic after all. I suspect that she will continue with things like the baby box and the "free" nonsense but there is little doubt that her government would not be activist in progressive social policy in the way this one has been. Which is why Nicola has mobilised her troops to destroy her, of course. Her promise to stay neutral in the contest lasted less than a week, which in fairness is quite a long time for one of Nicola's promises.
I can remember how surprised everyone was when communism collapsed in 1989 and 1991 even though I was only about 10 / 12 years old at the time.
Things seemed very stable until they didn’t
People in the Soviet Union generally thought that the whole grey edifice would put last them. Even those who worked at a certain level in the system had no idea that it was getting more and more hollow. My stepmother worked at a research facility for the Soviet Navy - she said that no one she knew thought the system would fall. Even those who hated it actively (like her) thought that it would stagger on 1984 style.
One year's Reith Lectures just before the fall of the Soviet Union (the 1988 ones) is on the topic of Gorbachev's Russia. One of the reasons I found it interesting to listen to recently is that the expert giving the lectures had no idea that the whole thing was going to fall apart...
(I've been going through the back catalogue of Reith Lectures, since the BBC make them available as a podcast feed. Some of the early ones are interesting -- I wasn't expecting the one where the lecturer makes a defence of apartheid South Africa, for instance.)
It will be interesting to see how an openly right wing, socially conservative, SNP get on.
I am not sure that Forbes is "openly right wing". She was the Finance Minister in Nicola's Socialist republic after all. I suspect that she will continue with things like the baby box and the "free" nonsense but there is little doubt that her government would not be activist in progressive social policy in the way this one has been. Which is why Nicola has mobilised her troops to destroy her, of course. Her promise to stay neutral in the contest lasted less than a week, which in fairness is quite a long time for one of Nicola's promises.
As Jonathan implies, the raw politics of a perceived swing to the right if she wins will be significant. Some MSPs will probably revolt. The Greens will withdraw from the coalition. It's not obvious that a Forbes Government will in fact survive. If not, what she might do in economic terms is then irrelevant.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
’Prince Andrew Threatening To Write Bombshell Tell-All About King Charles Unless His Royal Paychecks Are Reinstated’
“People thought Prince Harry’s memoir was bad. But what Andrew can reveal about certain members of his family would blow the lid off!” spilled an insider.
Sources said vengeful Andrew may even address long-standing rumors about the kings’ flings with other men — more than six years after Charles, 74, was spotted puckering up with a much younger guy!
“He could uncover details about this father Prince Philip’s ties to Hitler’s Nazi regime, and he wouldn’t be unwilling to spill the darkest secrets held by his own mother, Queen Elizabeth!”
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
It will be interesting to see how an openly right wing, socially conservative, SNP get on.
I am not sure that Forbes is "openly right wing". She was the Finance Minister in Nicola's Socialist republic after all. I suspect that she will continue with things like the baby box and the "free" nonsense but there is little doubt that her government would not be activist in progressive social policy in the way this one has been. Which is why Nicola has mobilised her troops to destroy her, of course. Her promise to stay neutral in the contest lasted less than a week, which in fairness is quite a long time for one of Nicola's promises.
As Jonathan implies, the raw politics of a perceived swing to the right if she wins will be significant. Some MSPs will probably revolt. The Greens will withdraw from the coalition. It's not obvious that a Forbes Government will in fact survive. If not, what she might do in economic terms is then irrelevant.
Forbes has been clear that she has no interest in continuing with the Greens but as I have pointed out before the SNP doesn't actually need them, provided they all stick together. There is a risk that they won't but that cuts both ways. Any remaining centrist MSPs will be concerned about what is happening to Forbes and equally concerned about the uselessness of Yousaf.
Kate Forbes is the most popular candidate to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister despite the row over her religious beliefs, a poll of SNP supporters has found.
Scots who voted for the Nationalists at the 2021 Holyrood election were questioned on who they think should replace her as party leader - with almost a third (31 per cent) of those questioned said they do not yet know who to back.
But 28 per cent said they support Forbes - putting her ahead of rivals Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan, who polled 20 per cent and seven per cent respectively.
Our favourite cheddar is Black bomber from Snowdonia. It is the highest selling cheese in our local cheese shop. Welsh cheesemaking is pretty strong already.
It is indeed David , very popular in our house as well, also like their one with chilli's.
Almost (almost!) all of @Dura_Ace figures above are bollocks to put it mildly.
All I said was there are millions of people inside the borders of Ukraine with Moldovan, Russian, Hungarian and Romanian identities - which is true. I made no specific claim about the demographics of any individual oblast.
It may be true, but it might also be essentially redundant. Zelenskyy himself grew up as a Russian speaker, as did many other Ukrainians fighting Russia. .
The linguistic picture is very mixed...
Zelensky is a native Russian speaker and affects a very cultured accent in which terminal vowel sounds are rounded from /ɒ/ to /ɑ/ deliberately to sound like a Muscovite. I have never heard him not do this.
When he speaks Ukrainian it's with a very weird staccato accent that avoids palatisation and uses many obscure words and recently invented neologisms. The overall impression is the same as Jacob Rees-Mogg doing a press conference in a Geordie accent. Why aye, my good chap.
He uses "official" Ukrainian which is the language as it is spoken in the Cherkasy oblast and is basically Malorussian with some Polish loan words. The West-Ukranian dialog is more widespread and is a peasant's tongue mainly used for haggling over stolen tractor parts. It is, in some sense, a synthetic language invented by Ukrainian nationalists in the late 19th C. with extensive Polonisation. Finally, there is a Carpathian dialect with elements from the languages of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
In almost all of the videos of AFU forces at the front they are speaking Surzhyk which is a sociolectic combination of Russian and West Ukranian much favoured by the lower socioeconomic and criminal classes of Donbas and Ukraine.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Before I tootle off to bed, I need to address one of the really idiotic shibboleths that has taken hold on PB in the last couple of days:
For Russia, this is a fight for survival
What absolute absurd, and ridiculous bunkum.
If Russia pulls out of Ukraine then, for the average Russian, nothing changes. Except, perhaps, they don't mourn the death of friends and family, and goods are more available in stores. But nothing bad, fundamentally, happens except perhaps that Russia's standing falls in the world. (Something pretty fucking low on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.)
If the Ukrainians give in, by contrast, total fucking shit happens. We've already seen what's happened in the East (although @YBarddCwsc would like to pretend that "both sides" are somehow to blame), with rapes, extrajudicial murders and the abduction and forced resettlement in Russia of children.
Russia's existence is not threatened. Ukraine will not be marching on Moscow. Fuck, before Russia invaded there wasn't a chance in hell that Ukraine would even have been marching into the Crimea or the Donbas.
This is not a war of survival for Russia, it is a war of conquest. Those who seek to defend or excuse it should be ashamed of themselves.
Hear hear.
Just because its leaders frame it as a fight for survival, and public opinion may well back them up, doesn't make it so.
Many things are complicated, but not all things. No additional understanding of culture or history can change the objective reality of the war being a simple political choice.
Kate Forbes is the most popular candidate to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister despite the row over her religious beliefs, a poll of SNP supporters has found.
Scots who voted for the Nationalists at the 2021 Holyrood election were questioned on who they think should replace her as party leader - with almost a third (31 per cent) of those questioned said they do not yet know who to back.
But 28 per cent said they support Forbes - putting her ahead of rivals Humza Yousaf and Ash Regan, who polled 20 per cent and seven per cent respectively.
For Labour read SNP, for Jezbollah read Kate Forbes. Are the members going to impose Forbes over the wishes of the MSPs who largely don't want her?
That would be fun!
If Kate Forbes becomes SNP leader and a faction join with Labour and the Greens to vote Anas Sarwar in as FM, I do hope that two eventualities have been foreseen and planned for:
1) Actual rioting in Scotland; 2) The acute international shortages of popcorn.
All strange timing , The Magpie interviewed , alleged Imelda visit , chief constable packs his suitcase. Twitter allegations that ex police private eyes with connections hired in Salmond plot. Just co-incidences perhaps.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
Before I tootle off to bed, I need to address one of the really idiotic shibboleths that has taken hold on PB in the last couple of days:
For Russia, this is a fight for survival
What absolute absurd, and ridiculous bunkum.
If Russia pulls out of Ukraine then, for the average Russian, nothing changes. Except, perhaps, they don't mourn the death of friends and family, and goods are more available in stores. But nothing bad, fundamentally, happens except perhaps that Russia's standing falls in the world. (Something pretty fucking low on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.)
If the Ukrainians give in, by contrast, total fucking shit happens. We've already seen what's happened in the East (although @YBarddCwsc would like to pretend that "both sides" are somehow to blame), with rapes, extrajudicial murders and the abduction and forced resettlement in Russia of children.
Russia's existence is not threatened. Ukraine will not be marching on Moscow. Fuck, before Russia invaded there wasn't a chance in hell that Ukraine would even have been marching into the Crimea or the Donbas.
This is not a war of survival for Russia, it is a war of conquest. Those who seek to defend or excuse it should be ashamed of themselves.
Hear hear.
Just because its leaders frame it as a fight for survival, and public opinion may well back them up, doesn't make it so.
Many things are complicated, but not all things. No additional understanding of culture or history can change the objective reality of the war being a simple political choice.
The irony is, Russia wasn't fighting for its survival one year ago when it invaded Ukraine.
As I say, what we have here is a clash of two religions. One of them is full of sanctimonious, swivel-eyed moral scolds, rooting out heresy and trying to indoctrinate everybody into their fantastic way of thinking. The other is a branch of Calvinism. One of them asks “what would Jesus do?” and the other “what would Owen Jones think?”. Faced with a choice between their representatives on earth, I know which kind I would prefer to see in high office.
Typical hyperbolic bullshit. Some people have said they won't support Forbes's bid to be leader of the SNP, and this is called 'crucifixion'.
I know who I would describe as 'swivel-eyed'.
Did you bother to read the article or did the opening humour derail you straight into splenetic rage? The more pertinent question, though, is whether the religious or philosophical beliefs of a politician are relevant to their suitability for office, and especially when the office in question is leader.
Generally speaking, I don’t see why they aren’t — quite the contrary. The farming industry might reasonably be concerned if a vegan became Secretary of State at Defra. The Equality Act protects the philosophical beliefs of spiritualist psychics, but if a would-be prime minister claimed he could see into the future, voters might worry. And in both cases, the assurance that the beliefs in question were “personal” wouldn’t be much consolation — after all, they are still beliefs, involving a distinctive way of looking at the world that by definition can’t be switched off at will. Where a person appears to be able to leave his personal beliefs at home — as Forbes’ rival Humza Yousaf implies he can with Islam — then arguably, he doesn’t have very strong beliefs in the first place.
Yes, the rest of the article is also dishonest horseshit.
PMSL, he had a prior appointment to have his hair washed so could not vote. You don't half post plenty bullshit on top of your horseshit.
As I say, what we have here is a clash of two religions. One of them is full of sanctimonious, swivel-eyed moral scolds, rooting out heresy and trying to indoctrinate everybody into their fantastic way of thinking. The other is a branch of Calvinism. One of them asks “what would Jesus do?” and the other “what would Owen Jones think?”. Faced with a choice between their representatives on earth, I know which kind I would prefer to see in high office.
Typical hyperbolic bullshit. Some people have said they won't support Forbes's bid to be leader of the SNP, and this is called 'crucifixion'.
I know who I would describe as 'swivel-eyed'.
Did you bother to read the article or did the opening humour derail you straight into splenetic rage? The more pertinent question, though, is whether the religious or philosophical beliefs of a politician are relevant to their suitability for office, and especially when the office in question is leader.
Generally speaking, I don’t see why they aren’t — quite the contrary. The farming industry might reasonably be concerned if a vegan became Secretary of State at Defra. The Equality Act protects the philosophical beliefs of spiritualist psychics, but if a would-be prime minister claimed he could see into the future, voters might worry. And in both cases, the assurance that the beliefs in question were “personal” wouldn’t be much consolation — after all, they are still beliefs, involving a distinctive way of looking at the world that by definition can’t be switched off at will. Where a person appears to be able to leave his personal beliefs at home — as Forbes’ rival Humza Yousaf implies he can with Islam — then arguably, he doesn’t have very strong beliefs in the first place.
IOW, a rehash of a few of the points we've kicked around for the last few days. The opening was a load of balls. One of them asks “what would Jesus do?” and the other “what would Owen Jones think?” If it were honest would be "how does Wee Free doctrine compare with public opinion ?"
Owen Jones is a bit of a tw@t, and so is the piece's author.
It will be interesting to see how an openly right wing, socially conservative, SNP get on.
I am not sure that Forbes is "openly right wing". She was the Finance Minister in Nicola's Socialist republic after all. I suspect that she will continue with things like the baby box and the "free" nonsense but there is little doubt that her government would not be activist in progressive social policy in the way this one has been. Which is why Nicola has mobilised her troops to destroy her, of course. Her promise to stay neutral in the contest lasted less than a week, which in fairness is quite a long time for one of Nicola's promises.
As Jonathan implies, the raw politics of a perceived swing to the right if she wins will be significant. Some MSPs will probably revolt. The Greens will withdraw from the coalition. It's not obvious that a Forbes Government will in fact survive. If not, what she might do in economic terms is then irrelevant.
Forbes has been clear that she has no interest in continuing with the Greens but as I have pointed out before the SNP doesn't actually need them, provided they all stick together. There is a risk that they won't but that cuts both ways. Any remaining centrist MSPs will be concerned about what is happening to Forbes and equally concerned about the uselessness of Yousaf.
They are crapping themselves that the gravy train will hit the buffers unless Humza gets it. The troughing seat warmers will be getting calls if that is the case.
I like that, but only 8 out of 10 in the trolling stakes. For full marks, the tractor unit should have been blue and yellow instead of yellow all over.
Slava Ukraini!
(And apols to anyone who finds 'Slava Ukraini' deeply offensive because wibble wibble Bandera. Well no, no apologies actually. Grow up.)
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
only he did not, he was washing his hair when vote took place.
Our favourite cheddar is Black bomber from Snowdonia. It is the highest selling cheese in our local cheese shop. Welsh cheesemaking is pretty strong already.
It is indeed David , very popular in our house as well, also like their one with chilli's.
Delicious. I also recommend Hafod.
I once went to a restaurant in Cambridge and at the end of the meal was served a platter of what was claimed to be 4 Scottish cheeses. One was Hafod (the other 3 were genuinely Scottish).
The manager had to put up with me complaining that they did not the difference between Wales and Scotland for an hour or so.
From yesterday, I guess one of the benefits of the power of the Home Secretary to remove citizenship from those she believes to have entitlement another nationality is that her successor could strip Johnson of his British Passport.
I know he’s renounced his US citizenship, but the Begum case shows the minister doesn’t have to look too closely at the mechanics of overseas nationality law.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
Succession, the critically acclaimed satirical drama about a media mogul and his family’s fight over his legacy, is set to end with the upcoming fourth season.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
No. It's a summary. Like, for example, your statements on Kate Forbes.
But you are I fear incorrect on the 'one position.' He's said he thinks one thing, but has many positions on why he wouldn't actually do anything about it.
Our favourite cheddar is Black bomber from Snowdonia. It is the highest selling cheese in our local cheese shop. Welsh cheesemaking is pretty strong already.
It is indeed David , very popular in our house as well, also like their one with chilli's.
Delicious. I also recommend Hafod.
I once went to a restaurant in Cambridge and at the end of the meal was served a platter of what was claimed to be 4 Scottish cheeses. One was Hafod (the other 3 were genuinely Scottish).
The manager had to put up with me complaining that they did not the difference between Wales and Scotland for an hour or so.
Any recommendations for Scottish cheese?
That’s nothing. I once ordered an English Muffin in America and it was absolutely clear as soon as it arrived the damn thing had not been anywhere near England. I got into a gunfight with the manager. And don’t get me started on Mr Kipling and his so-called “French” Fancies. I’m banned from Sainsbury’s over that one.
"I really like cheese, and always have since I was a tiny child and I used to walk up to my grandparents in their farm.
One of the things I used to look forward to when I got there was the fact my grandmother would pass me a piece of cheese to eat.
"Caerffili is a cheese that I really like - that crumbly, slightly salty cheese that is Caerffili. But actually there's a lot of cheeses I like and I'll be eating some of it over this weekend."
From yesterday, I guess one of the benefits of the power of the Home Secretary to remove citizenship from those she believes to have entitlement another nationality is that her successor could strip Johnson of his British Passport.
I know he’s renounced his US citizenship, but the Begum case shows the minister doesn’t have to look too closely at the mechanics of overseas nationality law.
More that the British Courts take the view that countries breaking their own laws for political convenience don’t count.
Johnson would be an interesting case - he has renounced, but there is a path to reaquire. You apply and the US decides whether they want you back or not.
As I say, what we have here is a clash of two religions. One of them is full of sanctimonious, swivel-eyed moral scolds, rooting out heresy and trying to indoctrinate everybody into their fantastic way of thinking. The other is a branch of Calvinism. One of them asks “what would Jesus do?” and the other “what would Owen Jones think?”. Faced with a choice between their representatives on earth, I know which kind I would prefer to see in high office.
Typical hyperbolic bullshit. Some people have said they won't support Forbes's bid to be leader of the SNP, and this is called 'crucifixion'.
I know who I would describe as 'swivel-eyed'.
Did you bother to read the article or did the opening humour derail you straight into splenetic rage? The more pertinent question, though, is whether the religious or philosophical beliefs of a politician are relevant to their suitability for office, and especially when the office in question is leader.
Generally speaking, I don’t see why they aren’t — quite the contrary. The farming industry might reasonably be concerned if a vegan became Secretary of State at Defra. The Equality Act protects the philosophical beliefs of spiritualist psychics, but if a would-be prime minister claimed he could see into the future, voters might worry. And in both cases, the assurance that the beliefs in question were “personal” wouldn’t be much consolation — after all, they are still beliefs, involving a distinctive way of looking at the world that by definition can’t be switched off at will. Where a person appears to be able to leave his personal beliefs at home — as Forbes’ rival Humza Yousaf implies he can with Islam — then arguably, he doesn’t have very strong beliefs in the first place.
IOW, a rehash of a few of the points we've kicked around for the last few days. The opening was a load of balls. One of them asks “what would Jesus do?” and the other “what would Owen Jones think?” If it were honest would be "how does Wee Free doctrine compare with public opinion ?"
Owen Jones is a bit of a tw@t, and so is the piece's author.
First time I've actually read anything of Stock's (having previously said on here that I thought she was badly treated at Sussex, on the principle that academic freedom is important). Can't say I'm impressed; it's not exactly a coherent argument and diverges quickly into her main hobbyhorse of transgender issues. I can see why whe's obsessed with that, given her history, but it hasn't really featured in the Forbes controversy.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
No. It's a summary. Like, for example, your statements on Kate Forbes.
But you are I fear incorrect on the 'one position.' He's said he thinks one thing, but has many positions on why he wouldn't actually do anything about it.
It's not surprising this causes confusion.
Again, it sounds like the same reason repeated on why he missed the final vote. And he voted in favour on previous vote. Now maybe he's lying about his reason for missing the final vote, but I'm failing to see the inconsistency.
No idea what you mean about my statements on Forbes.
Sunak has a more favourable rating amongst Ukrainians than Macron and Scholz but less than Johnson or Biden. Most British and US voters still support military aid and supplies to Ukraine but 43% of Trump voters don't.
Russians have a more favourable view of China, Iran and North Korea than western nations now. 53% of Russians still strongly back Putin's war but a plurality think a diplomatic solution will resolve it.
All the above from an Ashcroft poll one year since the Russian invasion
Our favourite cheddar is Black bomber from Snowdonia. It is the highest selling cheese in our local cheese shop. Welsh cheesemaking is pretty strong already.
It is indeed David , very popular in our house as well, also like their one with chilli's.
Delicious. I also recommend Hafod.
I once went to a restaurant in Cambridge and at the end of the meal was served a platter of what was claimed to be 4 Scottish cheeses. One was Hafod (the other 3 were genuinely Scottish).
The manager had to put up with me complaining that they did not the difference between Wales and Scotland for an hour or so.
Any recommendations for Scottish cheese?
Exra mature Mull cheddar is good. Lanark Blue and Ayrshire Dunlop if you can find them , not many places sell them. Easier to find are Mull, Orkney and Seriously Strong cheeses.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
Absolutely.
It has been a real pleasure publishing these pieces.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
Thomas Power : Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!
Professor William Kaufman : "Well, you'd better make sure that they're a man and a woman."
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
My favourite is "terrible, terrible things are taking place on our doorstep" from our California resident.
Given most SNP MSPs and MPs back Yousaf over Forbes though it seems could we see a replay of last year's Tory leadership election? Forbes like Truss wins the vote of party members but Yousaf like Sunak comes back to topple her with the support of SNP representatives in Parliament?
Suits out, jeans in: offices get casual about dress codes
The days of City gents in bowler hats and women in power suits are a thing of the past. An increasing number of companies are getting rid of formal dress codes for their office workers, research has found.
After more than two years spent working remotely in loungewear during the pandemic, suits, shirts and A-line skirts are out as many businesses have switched to a more casual dress culture, according to an analysis by the job search website Adzuna.
Out of 3,663 jobs advertised this month, four in five specified a dress code that took a “relaxed” attitude to what employees could wear to work.
If Humza Yousaf is the answer, you have to ask: what was the question? No wonder prominent nationalist commentators are “weeping” at the state of the SNP leadership race after a week of bitter factionalism and bigotry.
And hypocrisy - now that Humza Yousaf has effectively been accused of lying about why he failed to vote for gay marriage in 2014. The former SNP health secretary, Alex Neil, who was in charge of the equal marriage bill in 2014 says it is “not true” that Yousaf had no choice but to miss the crucial vote. Mr Neil told The Herald it was a “cop out”.
Suits out, jeans in: offices get casual about dress codes
The days of City gents in bowler hats and women in power suits are a thing of the past. An increasing number of companies are getting rid of formal dress codes for their office workers, research has found.
After more than two years spent working remotely in loungewear during the pandemic, suits, shirts and A-line skirts are out as many businesses have switched to a more casual dress culture, according to an analysis by the job search website Adzuna.
Out of 3,663 jobs advertised this month, four in five specified a dress code that took a “relaxed” attitude to what employees could wear to work.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
He had a meeting booked ,19 days prior to knowing vote date , with a very lowly pakistan delegate. Stop digging your own bullshit out or you will be submerged. Public lies pretending to support versus not voting for it , you are a real dumb schmuck.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
From a purely self-interested Western European POV, it’s a lot safer to have this war in Eastern Ukraine than in the Baltic States, Kaliningrad, and Poland. Had Putin won, that is the prospect we would face.
If Humza Yousaf is the answer, you have to ask: what was the question? No wonder prominent nationalist commentators are “weeping” at the state of the SNP leadership race after a week of bitter factionalism and bigotry.
And hypocrisy - now that Humza Yousaf has effectively been accused of lying about why he failed to vote for gay marriage in 2014. The former SNP health secretary, Alex Neil, who was in charge of the equal marriage bill in 2014 says it is “not true” that Yousaf had no choice but to miss the crucial vote. Mr Neil told The Herald it was a “cop out”.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
He had a meeting booked ,19 days prior to knowing vote date , with a very lowly pakistan delegate. Stop digging your own bullshit out or you will be submerged. Public lies pretending to support versus not voting for it , you are a real dumb schmuck.
Sorry Malcolm, you're the one talking utter mince here.
Here is Humza Yousaf's tweet from February 2014.
Meeting Pakistan Consul discussing Scot on death row accused under Blasphemy Law not one could/want avoid
Drought watch extending across much of England. We’re going to need a hell of a lot of rain in March and April to avoid serious restrictions come the summer. The only consolation is knowing what a fine bunch of people there are running our water supplies - and just how brilliantly talented the Environment Secretary is. We can count on them to make all the right calls and, crucially, to be planning now to mitigate the effects of the low rainfall.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
He had a meeting booked ,19 days prior to knowing vote date , with a very lowly pakistan delegate. Stop digging your own bullshit out or you will be submerged. Public lies pretending to support versus not voting for it , you are a real dumb schmuck.
Sorry Malcolm, you're the one talking utter mince here.
Here is Humza Yousaf's tweet from February 2014.
Meeting Pakistan Consul discussing Scot on death row accused under Blasphemy Law not one could/want avoid
He booked it at least 19 days in advance , I doubt the Pakistan Consul has his diary in Scotland fully booked for many many weeks in advance. Methinks he could have altered the timing if he had wanted. Bit Like Johnson having to rush to Afghanistan when he was about to have to lie on Heathrow. Poor attempt at trying to support the clown. It was a calculated deliberate plan to avoid voting as he was under fire from his community and he wanted to save his sorry skin.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
He had a meeting booked ,19 days prior to knowing vote date , with a very lowly pakistan delegate. Stop digging your own bullshit out or you will be submerged. Public lies pretending to support versus not voting for it , you are a real dumb schmuck.
Morning Malc, glad to see there are no interruptions to the supplies of ballistic turnips.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
He had a meeting booked ,19 days prior to knowing vote date , with a very lowly pakistan delegate. Stop digging your own bullshit out or you will be submerged. Public lies pretending to support versus not voting for it , you are a real dumb schmuck.
Sorry Malcolm, you're the one talking utter mince here.
Here is Humza Yousaf's tweet from February 2014.
Meeting Pakistan Consul discussing Scot on death row accused under Blasphemy Law not one could/want avoid
He booked it at least 19 days in advance , I doubt the Pakistan Consul has his diary in Scotland fully booked for many many weeks in advance. Methinks he could have altered the timing if he had wanted. Bit Like Johnson having to rush to Afghanistan when he was about to have to lie on Heathrow. Poor attempt at trying to support the clown. It was a calculated deliberate plan to avoid voting as he was under fire from his community and he wanted to save his sorry skin.
Feeble pathetic attempt to pretend he could not make it as he could not vote YES. Saying he was washing his hair would have been more realistic.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
He had a meeting booked ,19 days prior to knowing vote date , with a very lowly pakistan delegate. Stop digging your own bullshit out or you will be submerged. Public lies pretending to support versus not voting for it , you are a real dumb schmuck.
Sorry Malcolm, you're the one talking utter mince here.
Here is Humza Yousaf's tweet from February 2014.
Meeting Pakistan Consul discussing Scot on death row accused under Blasphemy Law not one could/want avoid
He booked it at least 19 days in advance , I doubt the Pakistan Consul has his diary in Scotland fully booked for many many weeks in advance. Methinks he could have altered the timing if he had wanted. Bit Like Johnson having to rush to Afghanistan when he was about to have to lie on Heathrow. Poor attempt at trying to support the clown. It was a calculated deliberate plan to avoid voting as he was under fire from his community and he wanted to save his sorry skin.
Feeble pathetic attempt to pretend he could not make it as he could not vote YES. Saying he was washing his hair would have been more realistic.
On 14 January 2014, the Equal Marriage Vote was entered into Humza Yousaf's ministerial diary for 4 February , by the Minister for Parliamentary Business.
16 January 2014, Yousaf scheduled his "urgent" meeting with the Pakistani Consul General for 19 DAYS LATER to miss the vote.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
He had a meeting booked ,19 days prior to knowing vote date , with a very lowly pakistan delegate. Stop digging your own bullshit out or you will be submerged. Public lies pretending to support versus not voting for it , you are a real dumb schmuck.
Morning Malc, glad to see there are no interruptions to the supplies of ballistic turnips.
Morning Ydoethur, like shooting fish in a barrel with these nutters opining on things they have no clue about. He lied through his teeth
On 14 January 2014, the Equal Marriage Vote was entered into Humza Yousaf's ministerial diary for 4 February , by the Minister for Parliamentary Business.
16 January 2014, Yousaf scheduled his "urgent" meeting with the Pakistani Consul General for 19 DAYS LATER to miss the vote.
Our favourite cheddar is Black bomber from Snowdonia. It is the highest selling cheese in our local cheese shop. Welsh cheesemaking is pretty strong already.
It is indeed David , very popular in our house as well, also like their one with chilli's.
Delicious. I also recommend Hafod.
I once went to a restaurant in Cambridge and at the end of the meal was served a platter of what was claimed to be 4 Scottish cheeses. One was Hafod (the other 3 were genuinely Scottish).
The manager had to put up with me complaining that they did not the difference between Wales and Scotland for an hour or so.
Any recommendations for Scottish cheese?
Exra mature Mull cheddar is good. Lanark Blue and Ayrshire Dunlop if you can find them , not many places sell them. Easier to find are Mull, Orkney and Seriously Strong cheeses.
Hebridean Blue is a Scottish classic. Isle of Kintyre applewood smoked cheddar is delicious. Aged Gouda from Connage Dairy also very good. There are loads.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
I think that the NATO partnership is a sensible red line.
Humza Yousaf in hypocrisy storm as the minister who took same-sex marriage bill through parliament claims he asked for an excuse to skip vote on it because he was “under so much pressure from the mosque”.
A 32-page photo special illustrating why Humza is a hypocrite? Blimey!
Seems to be some disagreement about what happened according to the Mail: "'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
Given Yousaf has had more positions than there are in the Kama Sutra, that may not be the Mail's fault (for once).
Don't know anything about Yousaf, which different positions has he had on marriage equality?
Roughly, as I understand it:
Said he was in favour of it Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
That sounds like a consistent position of always saying he's in favour of it? And maybe he ran away from the last vote, but as he kept publicly supporting equal marriage and voted for it that doesn't make that much sense to me.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
He had a meeting booked ,19 days prior to knowing vote date , with a very lowly pakistan delegate. Stop digging your own bullshit out or you will be submerged. Public lies pretending to support versus not voting for it , you are a real dumb schmuck.
Sorry Malcolm, you're the one talking utter mince here.
Here is Humza Yousaf's tweet from February 2014.
Meeting Pakistan Consul discussing Scot on death row accused under Blasphemy Law not one could/want avoid
He booked it at least 19 days in advance , I doubt the Pakistan Consul has his diary in Scotland fully booked for many many weeks in advance. Methinks he could have altered the timing if he had wanted. Bit Like Johnson having to rush to Afghanistan when he was about to have to lie on Heathrow. Poor attempt at trying to support the clown. It was a calculated deliberate plan to avoid voting as he was under fire from his community and he wanted to save his sorry skin.
Feeble pathetic attempt to pretend he could not make it as he could not vote YES. Saying he was washing his hair would have been more realistic.
On 14 January 2014, the Equal Marriage Vote was entered into Humza Yousaf's ministerial diary for 4 February , by the Minister for Parliamentary Business.
16 January 2014, Yousaf scheduled his "urgent" meeting with the Pakistani Consul General for 19 DAYS LATER to miss the vote.
He starts to sound like the SNP's Boris Johnson - all set to mastermind front a successful 'out' campaign and then win a stonking electoral majority?
Our favourite cheddar is Black bomber from Snowdonia. It is the highest selling cheese in our local cheese shop. Welsh cheesemaking is pretty strong already.
It is indeed David , very popular in our house as well, also like their one with chilli's.
Delicious. I also recommend Hafod.
I once went to a restaurant in Cambridge and at the end of the meal was served a platter of what was claimed to be 4 Scottish cheeses. One was Hafod (the other 3 were genuinely Scottish).
The manager had to put up with me complaining that they did not the difference between Wales and Scotland for an hour or so.
Any recommendations for Scottish cheese?
Exra mature Mull cheddar is good. Lanark Blue and Ayrshire Dunlop if you can find them , not many places sell them. Easier to find are Mull, Orkney and Seriously Strong cheeses.
Hebridean Blue is a Scottish classic. Isle of Kintyre applewood smoked cheddar is delicious. Aged Gouda from Connage Dairy also very good. There are loads.
For sure Lucky , but I have some lopping to do so don't have all day to talk cheese. Some will be easier to get than others as well. Great English cheddars abound as well.
Interesting how Equal Marriage has gone from highly controversial to simply beyond the Pale to oppose in little over a decade. There must be many dozens of MP's currently sitting in Westminster who voted against. Will this become an issue at General Election time?
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
Russia have completely backed off from the nuclear rhetoric in recent months after the Chinese told them to rein it in. A mystery to me why there are those on pb.com still hyping it as a scenario.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
I think that the NATO partnership is a sensible red line.
Would you go to war now on account of Ukraine?
I think that's not a totally unreasonable position, though it does leave places like Moldova and Georgia under threat.
It also raises the question - what is the best way to ensure NATO unity in the future?
As I say, what we have here is a clash of two religions. One of them is full of sanctimonious, swivel-eyed moral scolds, rooting out heresy and trying to indoctrinate everybody into their fantastic way of thinking. The other is a branch of Calvinism. One of them asks “what would Jesus do?” and the other “what would Owen Jones think?”. Faced with a choice between their representatives on earth, I know which kind I would prefer to see in high office.
Typical hyperbolic bullshit. Some people have said they won't support Forbes's bid to be leader of the SNP, and this is called 'crucifixion'.
I know who I would describe as 'swivel-eyed'.
Did you bother to read the article or did the opening humour derail you straight into splenetic rage? The more pertinent question, though, is whether the religious or philosophical beliefs of a politician are relevant to their suitability for office, and especially when the office in question is leader.
Generally speaking, I don’t see why they aren’t — quite the contrary. The farming industry might reasonably be concerned if a vegan became Secretary of State at Defra. The Equality Act protects the philosophical beliefs of spiritualist psychics, but if a would-be prime minister claimed he could see into the future, voters might worry. And in both cases, the assurance that the beliefs in question were “personal” wouldn’t be much consolation — after all, they are still beliefs, involving a distinctive way of looking at the world that by definition can’t be switched off at will. Where a person appears to be able to leave his personal beliefs at home — as Forbes’ rival Humza Yousaf implies he can with Islam — then arguably, he doesn’t have very strong beliefs in the first place.
Humour you say?
Great that the GCs have found time in their busy schedule to add Scotland to their portfolio of stuff that they go on and on about (with a sprinkle of whiny ‘why am I being silenced’). Only a matter of time before they’re comparing Forbes’ ‘crucifixion’ with the martyrdom of the the legitimate concerns people.
Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?
No?
It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
I think that the NATO partnership is a sensible red line.
Would you go to war now on account of Ukraine?
Not at present, no. And we are not at war.
But there are scenarios where we might need to get more involved - and hopefully these won't happen. For instance, a nuclear or serious chemical/biological weapon attack on Ukraine would be one of my red lines, in addition to NATO.
But when you say NATO: what would you think and do if Russia made a grab for Moldova via Transnistria? Ignore it?
Comments
Will eat it with even more enthusiasm now.
https://twitter.com/ennolenze/status/1629010865964867584
I support homosexual marriage but I also don't see why ultra secular social liberals should tell the strongly religious how they should vote either
December +0.9C above the long term average: that’s around or a little under par for what we’d expect based on the regional warming trend, but there was a North-South divide with the colder weather in the industrialised North. Not ideal for gas usage.
January +2.2C above LTA: that is very warm, 3rd warmest in the series for the continent and a degree above globally warmed par (European winter is warming much more rapidly than the global annual mean). Most of the warmth in the East.
February so far more similar to December but with milder weather in the NW and colder in the East.
It’s quite possible next winter could be similar or warmer. We are in a warming world. I do wonder whether Russian planners made assumptions on European gas needs based on 20th century averages. They seem like the sort to be climate change deniers.
Next winter will be an El Niño winter. That tends to mean a higher tendency to cold blocked weather in the late winter. We’ll see.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-maps
Leaders of parties have more chance of being elected if they vote in line with the views of their parties members and voters.
People in the Soviet Union generally thought that the whole grey edifice would put last them. Even those who worked at a certain level in the system had no idea that it was getting more and more hollow. My stepmother worked at a research facility for the Soviet Navy - she said that no one she knew thought the system would fall. Even those who hated it actively (like her) thought that it would stagger on 1984 style.
It is one year since I stood outside the Estonian Parliament for the traditional raising of the national flag from Tall Hermann tower. Looking at the young fraternities gathered with their flags, I was very sure that Estonia too would soon be facing the aggression of the criminal Russian regime. A tragic and dark day.
5 eyes intelligence had been clear: an all out invasion was going to happen, and Putin´s goals included- and still include- "restoration" of Russian imperial power across Europe, even to the Atlantic. Yet there was one Western intelligence failure: we all underestimated the guts of the Ukrainian armed forces, the ZSU, and its President and people.
One year on, Estonia, and indeed all the front line states against Russia, knows that Ukraine saved us.
Estonia used that time to prepare itself, should that "delayed" onslaught ever be unleashed, but equally the determination of Kaja Kallas, the Estonian Prime Minister, and the whole country, is that Ukraine shall stand. Over 40,000 Ukrainian refugees are here, and per capita, Estonia leads the table of assistance given to Kyiv.
Estonia now believes that Ukraine can ultimately defeat Russia. Indeed defeat for Putin cannot be optional: the monstrous evil that has unleashed a totally unprovoked war against a peaceful (even sleepy) democratic neighbour will stop at nothing. The war has been marked by a brutality- child rape and torture and the murder of innocent civilians- that stands high in the catalogue of human crime. Yes, Putin could even overtake Hitler, Stalin or Mao as the Human race´s greatest murderer, were he to unleash his nuclear arsenal. The fact that this is even possible, is why Russia must be defeated and either restored to the ranks of civilized nations or destroyed.
Nor is it hubris to point out that the criminal regime in the Moscow Kremlin is a brittle and weak government. There are protests in Russia and an entire generation of well educated young men have walked away from Putinism. The brutality of operations in Ukraine reflects a primitive and weak system of government and a corrupt and incompetent high command. The splits between the thuggish Wagnerite, Progrozhin, the dimwitted homunculus, Kadyrov, and the bovine Putin loyalist, Shoigu, will be battle lines of a civil war as Putin´s power inevitably drains away. The return of the meat grinder has destroyed Wagner and is destroying even "elite" units that are not the poorly trained sweepings of Russian jails.
With new equipment and better training, the ZSU can return to winning ways as snow and mud gives way to the drier summer. So after the tragedy of one year ago, we look to the future with hope, thanks to the courage of Ukraine.
Glory to Ukraine, To the Heroes, Glory! Слава Україні! Героям Слава!
The Spanish South American one, for a start
On competition in sports rights generally, I would be happy with there being less of a free market, but one clear benefit for sports fans, and to a small extent the UK economy, is the strength of the Premier League.
(I've been going through the back catalogue of Reith Lectures, since the BBC make them available as a podcast feed. Some of the early ones are interesting -- I wasn't expecting the one where the lecturer makes a defence of apartheid South Africa, for instance.)
Slava Ukraini, and may their means to fight keep coming.
ETA: Ooops! I did the four-dot ellipsis
"'In November 2013, Mr Yousaf voted in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill but missed the key final vote on the Bill that went through Holyrood on 4 February 2014.
Joe FitzPatrick, who was the SNP Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business during the passing of the Bill, said: 'I was the Government's Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time.
'All arrangements for Ministers being handed permission to conduct vital government business during votes in parliament were handled and approved by myself.
'While other ministers did raise concerns about the Bill at the time, Humza was not one of them. Humza gave his full backing to the Bill in its first vote through parliament and he continues to be a staunch ally of the LGBTQ+ community to this day and beyond.'
Asked earlier yesterday if he intentionally skipped the vote, Mr Yousaf said: 'I've said already no, and it is incredible that in the years that have receded since then that nobody has ever raised the issue.'"
And
" Responding to Mr Neil's claims, Mr Yousaf said: 'I was proud to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill in Scotland's Parliament.
'I was vocal about my support for marriage equality at the time and I remain unequivocal on that position.' "
If BoZo gets his way, so are the Tories.
While boring, competent Starmer has evicted the factions and is well on his way to Number 10...
Just because its leaders frame it as a fight for survival, and public opinion may well back them up, doesn't make it so.
Many things are complicated, but not all things. No additional understanding of culture or history can change the objective reality of the war being a simple political choice.
Said he was in favour of it
Said he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting so he couldn't vote for it
Said he would continue to vote in favour of it, but that wasn't relevant
Said he would have voted for it but for an emergency situation that required him to be absent
Said that he was in favour of it, but he had a pre-booked meeting he didn't cancel because of an emergency situation
Says he's still in favour of it so what's your problem bitch?
My suspicion - which could be completely wrong - is that he probably is either in favour of or at least not opposed to gay marriage but dare not upset his family and fellow Muslims by actively supporting it.
Which, to be fair, is also a position I could have some sympathy with.
I have to say I think it is less important than his actions over his son's nursery, or the chaos he's caused in Scotland's NHS, in deciding his fitness or otherwise to be SNP leader and FM.
There is a non-trivial chance it is now.
Karma's a bitch...if you are.
The opening was a load of balls.
One of them asks “what would Jesus do?” and the other “what would Owen Jones think?”
If it were honest would be "how does Wee Free doctrine compare with public opinion ?"
Owen Jones is a bit of a tw@t, and so is the piece's author.
Slava Ukraini!
(And apols to anyone who finds 'Slava Ukraini' deeply offensive because wibble wibble Bandera. Well no, no apologies actually. Grow up.)
I once went to a restaurant in Cambridge and at the end of the meal was served a platter of what was claimed to be 4 Scottish cheeses. One was Hafod (the other 3 were genuinely Scottish).
The manager had to put up with me complaining that they did not the difference between Wales and Scotland for an hour or so.
Any recommendations for Scottish cheese?
At the end of his career just how much higher than Sir Donald Bradman's test average will be Sir Harry Brook's test average?
I know he’s renounced his US citizenship, but the Begum case shows the minister doesn’t have to look too closely at the mechanics of overseas nationality law.
Just repeating that he supported it isn't the same as having as many positions as the karma sutra, sounds like the same position again and again? And is 'bitch' a direct quote?
His average ended up around the 54 mark.
Edit - I'm wrong, it was 51.
Succession, the critically acclaimed satirical drama about a media mogul and his family’s fight over his legacy, is set to end with the upcoming fourth season.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/feb/24/succession-next-season-of-hbo-hit-will-be-the-last-creator-confirms
But you are I fear incorrect on the 'one position.' He's said he thinks one thing, but has many positions on why he wouldn't actually do anything about it.
It's not surprising this causes confusion.
@benatipsos: RT @Otto_English: Lord Hannan's extraordinary piece about Putin. Written two weeks before the invasion of Ukraine. Which has aged lik… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629031278656774144
Which politician?
"I really like cheese, and always have since I was a tiny child and I used to walk up to my grandparents in their farm.
One of the things I used to look forward to when I got there was the fact my grandmother would pass me a piece of cheese to eat.
"Caerffili is a cheese that I really like - that crumbly, slightly salty cheese that is Caerffili. But actually there's a lot of cheeses I like and I'll be eating some of it over this weekend."
It can only be the Drake.
He does human well.
Johnson would be an interesting case - he has renounced, but there is a path to reaquire. You apply and the US decides whether they want you back or not.
So the US saying no would perfectly legal.
I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.
No idea what you mean about my statements on Forbes.
Russians have a more favourable view of China, Iran and North Korea than western nations now. 53% of Russians still strongly back Putin's war but a plurality think a diplomatic solution will resolve it.
All the above from an Ashcroft poll one year since the Russian invasion
https://conservativehome.com/2023/02/24/lord-ashcroft-my-polling-shows-ukrainians-more-confident-than-ever-of-victory-but-russians-still-behind-putin/
Easier to find are Mull, Orkney and Seriously Strong cheeses.
No?
Is that a thing now in English cricket?
It has been a real pleasure publishing these pieces.
Thomas Power : Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!
Professor William Kaufman : "Well, you'd better make sure that they're a man and a woman."
Mike Atherton did a piece that by 2030 he expects all England age groups to be privately educated.
The man with the largest doorstep in the world.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23342512.snp-leadership-race-kate-forbes-takes-early-lead-voter-poll/
Given most SNP MSPs and MPs back Yousaf over Forbes though it seems could we see a replay of last year's Tory leadership election? Forbes like Truss wins the vote of party members but Yousaf like Sunak comes back to topple her with the support of SNP representatives in Parliament?
The days of City gents in bowler hats and women in power suits are a thing of the past. An increasing number of companies are getting rid of formal dress codes for their office workers, research has found.
After more than two years spent working remotely in loungewear during the pandemic, suits, shirts and A-line skirts are out as many businesses have switched to a more casual dress culture, according to an analysis by the job search website Adzuna.
Out of 3,663 jobs advertised this month, four in five specified a dress code that took a “relaxed” attitude to what employees could wear to work.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suits-out-jeans-in-offices-get-casual-about-dress-codes-k7mk3vf3j
And hypocrisy - now that Humza Yousaf has effectively been accused of lying about why he failed to vote for gay marriage in 2014. The former SNP health secretary, Alex Neil, who was in charge of the equal marriage bill in 2014 says it is “not true” that Yousaf had no choice but to miss the crucial vote. Mr Neil told The Herald it was a “cop out”.
No wonder Nicola Sturgeon wanted out of this nest of vipers. Mind you the former First Minister wasted no time in reneging on her promise to stay out of the race to succeed her. She shafted Kate Forbes by joining in the witch hunt over her “values”. Apparently the First Minister didn’t know that Forbes was an evangelical Christian when she installed her as finance secretary, the second top job in the Scottish government. Well, well.
https://iainmacwhirter.substack.com/p/if-humza-yousaf-is-the-answer-what?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1104569&post_id=104724714&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".
I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.
Public lies pretending to support versus not voting for it , you are a real dumb schmuck.
Here is Humza Yousaf's tweet from February 2014.
Meeting Pakistan Consul discussing Scot on death row accused under Blasphemy Law not one could/want avoid
https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/431131459907497984
Isn't the obvious answer for Boris Johnson to become leader of the SNP?
You know who that is? Russia.
I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.
So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?
Saying he was washing his hair would have been more realistic.
16 January 2014, Yousaf scheduled his "urgent" meeting with the Pakistani Consul General for 19 DAYS LATER to miss the vote.
On 14 January 2014, the Equal Marriage Vote was entered into Humza Yousaf's ministerial diary for 4 February , by the Minister for Parliamentary Business.
16 January 2014, Yousaf scheduled his "urgent" meeting with the Pakistani Consul General for 19 DAYS LATER to miss the vote.
Would you go to war now on account of Ukraine?
Great English cheddars abound as well.
There must be many dozens of MP's currently sitting in Westminster who voted against.
Will this become an issue at General Election time?
It also raises the question - what is the best way to ensure NATO unity in the future?
Great that the GCs have found time in their busy schedule to add Scotland to their portfolio of stuff that they go on and on about (with a sprinkle of whiny ‘why am I being silenced’). Only a matter of time before they’re comparing Forbes’ ‘crucifixion’ with the martyrdom of the the legitimate concerns people.
But there are scenarios where we might need to get more involved - and hopefully these won't happen. For instance, a nuclear or serious chemical/biological weapon attack on Ukraine would be one of my red lines, in addition to NATO.
But when you say NATO: what would you think and do if Russia made a grab for Moldova via Transnistria? Ignore it?