Give us unity – but not just yet – politicalbetting.com

The co-convenor of Out for Independence, the SNP's LGBTQ+ wing, has submitted a formal complaint to the party's National Secretary after Kate Forbes said that "a trans woman is a biological male who identifies as a woman."

https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1628025219280523265?s=20

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

dixiedean said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

RobD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

RobD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

algarkirk said:

MoonRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

Burgessian said:

I think Kate may still win.

1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English.
2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment.
3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that.
4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.

Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).

Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.

Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP

you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.

I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.

The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.

The sight is utterly distasteful.

Where do I join so that I can vote for her?

Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.

Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.

As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.

If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.

And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.

But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?

Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.

And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?

What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?

Ask the Rohingya

That's not the case. They are Burmese Nationalists who happen to believe that to be Burmese you have to be Buddhist.
They don't have any particular views on what kind of beliefs you need to have on the topics that have got Ms. Forbes in a bind.

This is ‘no true Scotsman’

No TRUE Christian would have supported the Crusades/inquisition/witch burnings, etc

No it isn't.
It's a different point entirely.
For a start. There is no membership. Nor conversion, nor expulsion, confirmation or hierarchy.
So you are a Buddhist while you're being a Buddhist.
You can drop in and out and everyone does.
That's literally part of it.
So no true Buddhist is actually fundamental.

There clearly is conversion, of a brutal kind, and in which Buddhist monks participate, in Myanmar. That it doesn’t accord at all with Buddhist teachings doesn’t make it ‘not Buddhist’.

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Heathener said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

Leon said:

Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off

She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous

She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis

I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it

In ten years time, who knows…

It is rarer than a hen's teeth that I agree with you but on this occasion I do.

It's not merely the clutch of repulsive views which somehow manage to alienate huge swathes of society all at the same time, but the ineptitude and naivety of opening her mouth on such matters on day 2 of her leadership campaign.

It's like she launched and then decided to drill a series of holes in her own hull

The other way of looking at it is that she is being completely honest and upfront with who and what she is and what she believes in.

After all, the first thing to come up with the Greens will be the GRR.

Yeah but this has actually helped trans rights.

It's shown the vitriol against trans people for what it is: the same bigotry against gays, blacks, unmarried etc which has been the hallmark of such nastiness for decades.

In 20, 30, and 40 years time trans people will be enjoying the same rights as many gays do now and the last remaining rump of bigoted old white men will be searching around for another victim on whom to pour out their bile as they rail against the dying of the light.

What rights do gay or straight people have that trans people don’t?

Does the same apply to pedophiles? Surely they’re an oppressed minority whose rights are ignored? Or do we draw the line at pedophiles because they would affect the rights of others - children? But trans people affecting the rights of women is just fine and dandy?

Oh dear, you went there.

Answer the question.

What do we do when the rights of one group impinge on the rights of another?

Pretend there is no conflict “no debate” or discuss it?

(Sighs theatrically)

By equating the two like that, you are trying to equate trans people and pedophiles. I wonder why you picked 'pedophiles' and not something like 'criminals' ?

Would you ever say: "What rights do gay or straight people have that black/Asian people don’t? Does the same apply to pedophiles? "

So I will not answer the question, as it is a false question, asked with bad intent.

Edit: to make it clear: trans people != pedophiles.

You pretty much did answer the question, tbf: you pretend there is no conflict.

Just noticed @JennyGilruth has been quiet on the SNP leadership. Still another three days for MSPs to throw in their hats...

https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1628065349487689728?s=20

Leon said:

“Growing sentiment among SNP MSPs and MPs that Kate Forbes should "pull out of the leadership race for the good of the party." Source tells me: "There is no realistic prospect of winning and her continued presence is distracting and damaging the independence cause."”

https://twitter.com/alexofbrown/status/1628023489264332804?s=61&t=Piwa2wTZo9hjbQNUmVEthA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUpav2oWf1I

I am channelling my inner @Sunil_Prasannan and riding the railway lines of North Lincolnshire.

Just leaving Grimsby for the Lincoln line.

ydoethur said:

I am channelling my inner @Sunil_Prasannan and riding the railway lines of North Lincolnshire.

Just leaving Grimsby for the Lincoln line.

Are you doing a tour of the remaining Conservative constituencies after 2024?
Or is the theme Adventures in Brexitland?

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon raised this question on a recent visit to just one of these soulless urban centres in the US.
Interesting thread.

With remote work here to stay, cities around America are faced with a difficult challenge. Most office buildings won't be redeveloped into residential (floor plates either can't be converted, or cost is prohibitive), but they will also be under-occupied.

What happens then?
https://twitter.com/Cobylefko/status/1628038716403875843

A lot of American cities are really fucked. Hard to see a way out in the short-medium term

Those that accept the financial pain and rebuild better will have a significant advantage over the one who try to tough it out. It will also mean a complete rethink of a great number of zoning laws.
But you’re right, it’s going to be hard to sort out.

The combo of American worship of cars, its disdain for public transport, its adoration of suburbs, its zoning laws, its tolerance of high crime/guns, the homelessness/drug issue, and so much more - PLUS the adoption of WFH = Death to many American downtowns west of Chicago. Maybe west of NYC

It’s not obviously fixable

The dense, urban, car-hostile European city is making a major return

But it’s not just Europe. Bangkok or Phnom Penh are buzzing again in a way Denver or Frisco can only dream

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

The co-convenor of Out for Independence, the SNP's LGBTQ+ wing, has submitted a formal complaint to the party's National Secretary after Kate Forbes said that "a trans woman is a biological male who identifies as a woman."

https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1628025219280523265?s=20

That’s the way you do it. You don’t argue with what she has to say, you argue that she doesn’t have a right to say it.

Strange. Making a complaint about something someone has said means you aren't arguing with it?

Perhaps equally fairly one could characterise what you say as "You don't defend the comment that's being complained about, but prefer to portray the complaint against it as an attack on free speech".

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon raised this question on a recent visit to just one of these soulless urban centres in the US.
Interesting thread.

With remote work here to stay, cities around America are faced with a difficult challenge. Most office buildings won't be redeveloped into residential (floor plates either can't be converted, or cost is prohibitive), but they will also be under-occupied.

What happens then?
https://twitter.com/Cobylefko/status/1628038716403875843

A lot of American cities are really fucked. Hard to see a way out in the short-medium term

Those that accept the financial pain and rebuild better will have a significant advantage over the one who try to tough it out. It will also mean a complete rethink of a great number of zoning laws.
But you’re right, it’s going to be hard to sort out.

The combo of American worship of cars, its disdain for public transport, its adoration of suburbs, its zoning laws, its tolerance of high crime/guns, the homelessness/drug issue, and so much more - PLUS the adoption of WFH = Death to many American downtowns west of Chicago. Maybe west of NYC

It’s not obviously fixable

The dense, urban, car-hostile European city is making a major return

But it’s not just Europe. Bangkok or Phnom Penh are buzzing again in a way Denver or Frisco can only dream

Frisco is overshadowed by neighbouring Dallas and Fort Worth, of course

MaxPB said:

I really expected it would be Labour that would self destructed over blokes in dresses. Well done to the SNP for proving me wrong.

. .

Sandpit said:

No Six Nations team announcement from Wales - are they actually going to boycott the match?

Gatland delayed naming the team because it is still up in the air but he made quite optimistic remarks so make of that what you will.

Kate Forbes interview:

It is a "good question" why SNP cabinet colleagues have been surprised by her perspective on moral issues, Kate Forbes has told Holyrood….

"People often have said that I'm quite open about my perspective on things, sometimes quite vocal.

"If people think that I'm not who they thought I was, that's for them to answer. I have worked alongside them for six years."

as SNP leader and First Minister, she would U-turn on dualling the A9 and review the Scottish Government's deposit return scheme and planned restrictions on alcohol advertising, which have prompted concern from businesses.

Forbes said: "We need to dual the A9, we need to deliver our broadband objectives, we need to look at connectivity around our islands.

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,kate-forbes-snp-colleagues-should-not-have-been-surprised-by-my-views-on-samesex-marriage

The SNP needs to split. That’s it. Not splinter like Alba, but properly split into Forbes-ites and Sturgeon-ites, into right and left, traditional and low tax and progressive and high tax. They can still come together for Indy

This painful idea that such disparate views of humanity can all be safely contained in the modest tent of Scotland-in-the-EU is now simply absurd

Indy is a mature political view. It can and should be expressed through different parties who share one goal, at times

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Heathener said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

Leon said:

Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off

She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous

She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis

I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it

In ten years time, who knows…

It is rarer than a hen's teeth that I agree with you but on this occasion I do.

It's not merely the clutch of repulsive views which somehow manage to alienate huge swathes of society all at the same time, but the ineptitude and naivety of opening her mouth on such matters on day 2 of her leadership campaign.

It's like she launched and then decided to drill a series of holes in her own hull

The other way of looking at it is that she is being completely honest and upfront with who and what she is and what she believes in.

After all, the first thing to come up with the Greens will be the GRR.

Yeah but this has actually helped trans rights.

It's shown the vitriol against trans people for what it is: the same bigotry against gays, blacks, unmarried etc which has been the hallmark of such nastiness for decades.

In 20, 30, and 40 years time trans people will be enjoying the same rights as many gays do now and the last remaining rump of bigoted old white men will be searching around for another victim on whom to pour out their bile as they rail against the dying of the light.

What rights do gay or straight people have that trans people don’t?

Does the same apply to pedophiles? Surely they’re an oppressed minority whose rights are ignored? Or do we draw the line at pedophiles because they would affect the rights of others - children? But trans people affecting the rights of women is just fine and dandy?

Oh dear, you went there.

Answer the question.

What do we do when the rights of one group impinge on the rights of another?

Pretend there is no conflict “no debate” or discuss it?

(Sighs theatrically)

By equating the two like that, you are trying to equate trans people and pedophiles. I wonder why you picked 'pedophiles' and not something like 'criminals' ?

Would you ever say: "What rights do gay or straight people have that black/Asian people don’t? Does the same apply to pedophiles? "

So I will not answer the question, as it is a false question, asked with bad intent.

Edit: to make it clear: trans people != pedophiles.

As ever ducking the question and casting aspersions. The pedophile point was that their “rights” are quite rightly circumscribed by society to protect the rights of others.

When the rights of one group affect the rights of others what should we do?

Shout “No Debate” or discuss it?

But since you bring up criminals, is double rapist Isla Bryson a woman?

Why did you use 'pedophiles' in your question? What did you hope to achieve by using it?

Pedophiles rights are constrained by society, because they are criminals. Trans people, as a group, are not criminals. Therefore equating the two is odd.

As for rights being taken away: as far as I'm aware, you and others want to stop them using toilets whilst out in public, as they've done for as long as there have been public toilets. That's a rather fundamental 'right' taken away, again IMO.

And we are discussing it., if you had not noticed. I am not in favour of "no debate": but if you come on here trying to insinuate that trans people are bad, then I'll 'debate' with you. Even if you laughably accuse me of 'mansplaining'.

I’m not “equating the two” I’m trying to get you to understand that when groups rights collide there needs to be a discussion. You’re the one who obsesses about toilets. When have you ever acknowledged that trans rights might infringe on women’s rights?

How about this for an issue:

Until recently I would not have believed that the only people speaking up for girls who refuse to be subjected to sexual crimes (voyeurism and flashing) without complaint, and in what are supposed to be their own spaces, would be conservative Christians.…

Standing up for girls' right to set and enforce their own boundaries is core feminist work. But America's mainstream feminist organisations have abdicated - and worse, colluded in the mass legalisation of sexual crimes against women and girls, in the name of "gender identity"

https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1627984694980538368?s=20

Oh, and is double rapist Isla Bryson a woman?

TheScreamingEagles said:

As Tim Farron learned when you lead a socially liberal party you need to have socially liberal views.

I get the feeling Kate Forbes would disapprove of my lifestyle on multiple levels.

Imagine only having sex with somebody after you married them?

What happens if they are shit at the sex?

That’s when Spank The Monkey Lends A Hand

TheScreamingEagles said:

As Tim Farron learned when you lead a socially liberal party you need to have socially liberal views.

I get the feeling Kate Forbes would disapprove of my lifestyle on multiple levels.

Imagine only having sex with somebody after you married them?

What happens if they are shit at the sex?

Admittedly I'm not pretending to be an expert on such things but does sexual incompatibility really exist?

It isn't a common view nowadays but she's perfectly entitled to it.

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

The SNP needs to split. That’s it. Not splinter like Alba, but properly split into Forbes-ites and Sturgeon-ites, into right and left, traditional and low tax and progressive and high tax. They can still come together for Indy

This painful idea that such disparate views of humanity can all be safely contained in the modest tent of Scotland-in-the-EU is now simply absurd

Indy is a mature political view. It can and should be expressed through different parties who share one goal, at times

And, as Vote Leave / Leave.EU showed, two movements wanting the same thing for different reasons can be a campaigning benefit.

There are also interesting consequences under the Holyrood electoral system, which was designed precisely to allow two not too far removed parties to cooperate and dominate, i.e. Slab and LDs.

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

The SNP needs to split. That’s it. Not splinter like Alba, but properly split into Forbes-ites and Sturgeon-ites, into right and left, traditional and low tax and progressive and high tax. They can still come together for Indy

This painful idea that such disparate views of humanity can all be safely contained in the modest tent of Scotland-in-the-EU is now simply absurd

Indy is a mature political view. It can and should be expressed through different parties who share one goal, at times

And, as Vote Leave / Leave.EU showed, two movements wanting the same thing for different reasons can be a campaigning benefit.

Yes, good analogy. A tag team

Scottish Indy is a cause espoused by people across the political spectrum, who otherwise cordially detest each other’s opinions. That divide can no longer be bridged. It was only the powerful personalities of Salmond and Sturgeon that kept it all together

Stuartinromford said:

And, as Vote Leave / Leave.EU showed, two movements wanting the same thing for different reasons can be a campaigning benefit.

And if they win the result is a shitshow

Chris said:

Fairliered said:

Only after all that will I think about moral views, which I believe should be personal. Such matters should always be a vote of conscience, not a whipped vote.

I never really understand why the "conscience vote" is viewed as such an effective get-out clause for people like Kate Forbes.

Doesn't a democrat believe precisely the opposite? That they won't vote to regulate other people's lives according to their own personal beliefs, but will vote according to the wishes of the people who elected them (whether on a matter of party policy, or otherwise on a matter about which they had made their opinion clear to the electors before they were elected)?

Presumably the claim is that she does speak for her constituents, many of whom will agree with her prehistoric beliefs

Maybe Forbes needs to be brutally honest.

If she does win, I guess people would tend to feel she was honest in taking Indy forward / discussing it

Stuartinromford said:

Carnyx said:

MoonRabbit said:

MaxPB said:

I really expected it would be Labour that would self destructed over blokes in dresses. Well done to the SNP for proving me wrong.

. .

Whohe?

Someone who has seen the latest polling;

🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
Labour lead is twenty-two points in latest results from Deltapoll.
Con 28% (-)
Lab 50% (+2)
Lib Dem 9% (+1)
Other 12% (-4)
Fieldwork: 17th - 20th February
Sample: 1,079 GB adults
(Changes from 10th - 13th February 2023)

https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1628073405697196032

Meanwhile, back in Westminster, the ERG plotting to make things worse

Seriously. Can that particular grouping head off and join UKIP

The Tories has got decades of rebuilding after this. If it even exists

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64718823

Asda and Morrisons limiting sales of fruit now. Probably a non story according to the pb Brexiteers though as the photo will probably be as out of date as much of the fruit.

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

As Tim Farron learned when you lead a socially liberal party you need to have socially liberal views.

I get the feeling Kate Forbes would disapprove of my lifestyle on multiple levels.

Imagine only having sex with somebody after you married them?

What happens if they are shit at the sex?

The saving grace (if both partners had adhered to the no sex before marriage rule) is that they'd probably never know, given the lack of preivous experience with which to compare.

Of course they would if they were shit. Might not be able to tell average from good.

Breaking - huge news on nurses strikes. Both govt and RCN “agreed to enter a process of intensive talks. Both sides are committed to finding a fair and reasonable settlement.”
Talks will discuss “pay, terms and conditions, and productivity enhancing reforms.” Strikes on hold.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1628081188861620236?s=20

Eabhal said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon raised this question on a recent visit to just one of these soulless urban centres in the US.
Interesting thread.

With remote work here to stay, cities around America are faced with a difficult challenge. Most office buildings won't be redeveloped into residential (floor plates either can't be converted, or cost is prohibitive), but they will also be under-occupied.

What happens then?
https://twitter.com/Cobylefko/status/1628038716403875843

A lot of American cities are really fucked. Hard to see a way out in the short-medium term

Those that accept the financial pain and rebuild better will have a significant advantage over the one who try to tough it out. It will also mean a complete rethink of a great number of zoning laws.
But you’re right, it’s going to be hard to sort out.

The combo of American worship of cars, its disdain for public transport, its adoration of suburbs, its zoning laws, its tolerance of high crime/guns, the homelessness/drug issue, and so much more - PLUS the adoption of WFH = Death to many American downtowns west of Chicago. Maybe west of NYC

It’s not obviously fixable

The dense, urban, car-hostile European city is making a major return

But it’s not just Europe. Bangkok or Phnom Penh are buzzing again in a way Denver or Frisco can only dream

Imagine Soho without any cars. It's mad that haven't pedestrianised the whole area. They need to do the same with George Street in Edinburgh (there are long-term plans).

Weirdly Glasgow and Inverness are ahead on this front.

TBF there is Rose Street which acts as a parallel route to George St, and at least one of the cross roads from Princes St. And the gardens to north and south also function as massive pedestrian areas. Though only one block of the High St is pedestrianised.

Burgessian said:

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dear God!

Ross is putting an ultimatum to the SNP membership.

Vote Humza or we’ll not vote for them as FM.
Embedded video

https://twitter.com/scotfax/status/1628072041675988992?s=20

While Ross Greer doesn’t endorse any specific candidate he does say whoever is elected should pursue GRR through the courts - only Humza has said he’d do that.

The Greens are in no position to make demands

Why not? They are, sort of, a separate party.

GGR was a red line condition for them when they agreed to go into Govt with SNP. The fact that Sturgeon agreed to it, is more fool her.

Democracy. The election was fought on the basis that a minority would mean that the Greens would prop up the SNP.

noneoftheabove said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64718823

Asda and Morrisons limiting sales of fruit now. Probably a non story according to the pb Brexiteers though as the photo will probably be as out of date as much of the fruit.

From your link.

The shortages - which are affecting Ireland too - are largely the result of extreme weather in Spain and north Africa, where floods, snow and hail have affected harvests....

Industry sources said Brexit was unlikely to be a factor...

Scott_xP said:

Chris said:

Fairliered said:

Only after all that will I think about moral views, which I believe should be personal. Such matters should always be a vote of conscience, not a whipped vote.

I never really understand why the "conscience vote" is viewed as such an effective get-out clause for people like Kate Forbes.

Doesn't a democrat believe precisely the opposite? That they won't vote to regulate other people's lives according to their own personal beliefs, but will vote according to the wishes of the people who elected them (whether on a matter of party policy, or otherwise on a matter about which they had made their opinion clear to the electors before they were elected)?

Presumably the claim is that she does speak for her constituents, many of whom will agree with her prehistoric beliefs

If she had stood on that platform, fair enough. But today's news coverage has treated her statement that she would have voted against same-sex marriage as a revelation that has alienated some of her closest political supporters, which suggests that not even her allies among professional politicians were aware of her views, let alone the general public!

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff.
Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?

She has surely fucked her campaign, as her very own campaign aide says (never a good sign in a campaign). However in the interests of diversity and equality I REALLY hope some journalist is going to ask the same questions of Humza Yousaf. He may well have some interesting answers, and it would never do to encourage the perception that Muslims are given an easier ride than Wee Free white Hebrideans

Yousaf said at his own launch that "I don't legislate on the basis of my faith", arguing that as a member of a minority group he knows his rights "don't exist in some kind of vacuum... My rights are interdependent on other people's rights... I'll always fight for the equal rights of others regardless of who they are."
This seems to me exactly the right answer to the question that Forbes was asked, and I'm not sure that Yousaf really needs to say anything else on the subject.

The same one who took a nursery to court as racist because they did not have a vacancy for his children and recently quietly dropped it as it was just garbage. Pull the other one it plays jingle bells.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

So what is so bad about Hamza? Any examples?

Wrecked Justice , destroyed Health , has ruined every department he has been in,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVsD7mKHlDM

malcolmg said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

So what is so bad about Hamza? Any examples?

Wrecked Justice , destroyed Health , has ruined every department he has been in,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVsD7mKHlDM

It was cos of racism / Scotland being too white or something.....

malcolmg said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Jeez, she just can't stop talking about this stuff.
Is it time for an intervention, from above or otherwise?

She has surely fucked her campaign, as her very own campaign aide says (never a good sign in a campaign). However in the interests of diversity and equality I REALLY hope some journalist is going to ask the same questions of Humza Yousaf. He may well have some interesting answers, and it would never do to encourage the perception that Muslims are given an easier ride than Wee Free white Hebrideans

Yousaf said at his own launch that "I don't legislate on the basis of my faith", arguing that as a member of a minority group he knows his rights "don't exist in some kind of vacuum... My rights are interdependent on other people's rights... I'll always fight for the equal rights of others regardless of who they are."
This seems to me exactly the right answer to the question that Forbes was asked, and I'm not sure that Yousaf really needs to say anything else on the subject.

The same one who took a nursery to court as racist because they did not have a vacancy for his children and recently quietly dropped it as it was just garbage. Pull the other one it plays jingle bells.

If you don't understand the difference between legislating and litigating, perhaps you need to go away and do a bit of research.

tlg86 said:

Leon said:

Eabhal said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon raised this question on a recent visit to just one of these soulless urban centres in the US.
Interesting thread.

With remote work here to stay, cities around America are faced with a difficult challenge. Most office buildings won't be redeveloped into residential (floor plates either can't be converted, or cost is prohibitive), but they will also be under-occupied.

What happens then?
https://twitter.com/Cobylefko/status/1628038716403875843

A lot of American cities are really fucked. Hard to see a way out in the short-medium term

Those that accept the financial pain and rebuild better will have a significant advantage over the one who try to tough it out. It will also mean a complete rethink of a great number of zoning laws.
But you’re right, it’s going to be hard to sort out.

The combo of American worship of cars, its disdain for public transport, its adoration of suburbs, its zoning laws, its tolerance of high crime/guns, the homelessness/drug issue, and so much more - PLUS the adoption of WFH = Death to many American downtowns west of Chicago. Maybe west of NYC

It’s not obviously fixable

The dense, urban, car-hostile European city is making a major return

But it’s not just Europe. Bangkok or Phnom Penh are buzzing again in a way Denver or Frisco can only dream

Imagine Soho without any cars. It's mad that haven't pedestrianised the whole area. They need to do the same with George Street in Edinburgh (there are long-term plans).

Weirdly Glasgow and Inverness are ahead on this front.

I would essentially pedestrianise all of central London. Only allow tiny electric vehicles/taxis, maybe at certain times. Make space for e-bikes and escooters. This is the future. Embrace it

Camden market is nearly all pedestrian and is enormously popular, ditto most of covent garden

I went to Zermatt last September. It's sold as this idealised place without cars, but actually, the bikes and electric utility vehicles are a menace and you have to be really careful not to get run over.

That’s where street design is helpful - ensures everything has to slow down including scooters.

I think the residents-only rules in a lot of European city centres work fine. You need to keep a lookout for the odd scooter or old Clio but most of the time the space is open for pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists also behave better in those environments than on roads.

Then nice secure underground car parks entered via a little ramp on the edge of the market square at the edge of the centre for those who want to drive from the sticks.

malcolmg said:

He also dodged the gay marriage vote after his community criticised him for intending to vote the wrong way.

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.

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1627977144314757122?s=20

TheKitchenCabinet said:

dixiedean said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

dixiedean said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

RobD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

RobD said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

algarkirk said:

MoonRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

Burgessian said:

I think Kate may still win.

1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English.
2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment.
3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that.
4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.

Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).

Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.

Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP

you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.

I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.

The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.

The sight is utterly distasteful.

Where do I join so that I can vote for her?

Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.

Except she said explicitly that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation given her comments on gay marriage.

As Felix has pointed out, she has accepted the differences between her religious views and accepting the law.

If it comes to the point of "well, she wouldn't bring forward any more progressive measures", there have been plenty of Prime Ministers who have been overruled by their own parties and forced to take measures they didn't personally accept - either they swallowed it or they resigned.

And the point still stands. If KF was not Christian, at the least she would not be receiving the same level of pile on.

But in your counterfactual universe where she had the same beliefs but a different religion, she would still have said that she would have voted against gay marriage. Not exactly keeping her personal beliefs out of political legislation, is it?

Mmmm, but that wasn't my point. My point was that, if Kate was a hardline Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew (actually the last less so), she would not be facing as much criticism.

And I go back to what I just typed - Maggie T very much let her personal religious views influence her political legislation. Take it she was unsuitable as well then?

What's a "hardline Buddhist" when it's at home?

I think Braverman is a member of quite a hardline Buddhist sect. Funnily enough, it wasn't really mentioned against her in her campaign.

No.
She's a member of an unusual sect which many Buddhists aren't easy with because they have no lineage whatsoever.
They certainly aren't "hardline" in terms of one's personal beliefs.
They are just a bit strange in that they can't come up with a coherent set of beliefs, and seem to operate off the shelf. Even to the extent that they aren't Hinayana or Mahayana. Which is pretty fundamental to the point of it.
They have also been riven by a great number of sexual misconduct scandals.
Nice enough folk, but a peculiar atmosphere.

Myanmar? Imperial Japanese Army WW2?

Yes. I agree.
My point is that Braverman may have her personal views but she isn't a member of a hardline sect.
If anything they are the most wishy-washy.

Heathener said:

So it turns out that Kate Forbes is an unreconstructed evangelical Christian with some particularly nasty views.

Thinks it's wrong for children to be born out of wedlock (wtf?), opposes virtually all abortion, thinks no one can be trans, and opposes gay marriage.

What a horrible woman. Hope to god, or even God, that the SNP aren't stupid enough to select her.

https://news.sky.com/story/kate-forbes-says-her-faith-means-children-outside-of-marriage-is-wrong-12816429

Away and bile your flask

Theuniondivvie said:

RandallFlagg said:

YouGov
@YouGov
Latest Scottish Westminster voting intention (17-20 February)

SNP: 38% (-4 since 23-26 Jan*)
Labour: 29% (=)
Conservative: 19% (+4)
Lib Dem: 6% (=)
Green: 4% (+1)
Reform UK: 2% (-1)
Other: 2% (=)

SNP vote share drops below 40%, but SLAB vote share remains unchanged. It should be mentioned, however, the fieldwork was conducted BEFORE Forbes' social conservative views came to light.

Furthermore, there is a new R&W Red Wall poll.

Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton
Labour leads by 28% in the Red Wall, enough to win ALL 40 of these seats in the next GE.

Red Wall VI (19 Feb):

Labour 55% (+3)
Conservative 27% (-2)
Reform UK 10% (+2)
Lib Dem 4% (-1)
Green 3% (-1)
Plaid Cymru 1% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 5 Feb

Well, there's a turn up for the books.
The Starmer & Sarwar show not yet setting the heather ablaze.

My expectation would be that the change will have been driven by women unimpressed with Nicola's GRR Bill and its implications for their rights and freedoms. As the Tories have been the only party to oppose these (with minimal exceptions) and have blocked the bill by s35 they have got the credit. Or it might just be a somewhat louder than usual noise.

If it isn't it has implications for the leadership race. Yousaf seems fully on board the Sturgeon express with this one explaining how outrageous the s35 order is and would clearly support a judicial review of the decision. Forbes, equally clearly, wouldn't and would be delighted to park this issue somewhere quiet. If Forbes prevails the Tory gain may prove very short lived but I suspect that is only the start of their problems.

Forbes is the Scottish Tories' worst nightmare: she will attract a lot of tartan Tories who were fed up of Nicolas eccentric combination of socialism and statism. If Forbes wins I think no Scottish Tory seats becomes a real possibility. Which might, of course, prove to be a highly Pyrrhic victory if SLAB recovers and takes back a chunk of seats in the central belt.

Useless Yousaf, in contrast, might well allow a serious Scottish Tory recovery back to the giddy heights of Ruth Davidson's peak but might make things a little more difficult for SLAB.

Erly said:

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dear God!

Ross is putting an ultimatum to the SNP membership.

Vote Humza or we’ll not vote for them as FM.
Embedded video

https://twitter.com/scotfax/status/1628072041675988992?s=20

While Ross Greer doesn’t endorse any specific candidate he does say whoever is elected should pursue GRR through the courts - only Humza has said he’d do that.

The Greens are in no position to make demands

I thought they were. Presumably Greer is confident Humza will win.

Greer seems very quick to say what's in his head. Hardly a desideratum in government or any other position of responsibility except maybe shock jock.

Perhaps he's a cinch to wind up into a tizzy?

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/ross-greer-put-place-after-29073436

28 Jan 2023

"The Scottish Green MSP vented his fury after a paper reported on bizarre and false reports that children at a primary school were identifying as cats.

The Press and Journal featured a story with a council response to the bizarre claims about Banff Academy students meowing and defecting in feline litter boxes, but the MSP was quick to slate it."

He accused the journalists of spreading "Qanon" style moral panic amidst heated debate about the presence of identity politics and gender ideology in Scotlands schools.

A video appearing to show human waste on a toilet floor was shared alongside claims children were protesting over not having litter trays. The claims hit social media and 'spread like wild fire'.

However, Aberdeenshire Council has branded the rumours as misinformation, stating: 'We are aware of false rumours circulating online suggesting that Banff Academy has pupils identifying as cats requesting litter trays in the Academy’s toilets.' "

The P&J got the story from the National:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23276574.aberdeenshire-school-forced-deny-children-identifying-cats/

The funny thing is that Greer is actually right! The furries in schools thing has been pushed by QAnoner Marjorie Taylor Greene.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-gop-candidate-furries-schools/

Central Belt Lefties and furries: instant mental image of Mr Galloway.

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

Selebian said:

Carnyx said:

Selebian said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

algarkirk said:

MoonRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

Burgessian said:

I think Kate may still win.

1) Scots are not socially liberal - certainly no more so than the English.
2) The SNP are a mass membership party and the members, therefore, are more likely to be socially conservative than the inhabitants of the Holyrood bubble who are having a fit of the vapours at the moment.
3) Kate, and her Wee Free views, are authentically Scottish, not to say Highland Scots. SNP members, and others beside, will kinda like that.
4) And, most importantly, she IS NOT Humza "Useless" Yousaf. Who in their right mind would vote for him? A walking disaster area, when he isn't falling over in front of BBC cameramen.

Maybe the prayers of @Carnyx will be answered and someone from on high will intervene? (Though perhaps "He" already has).

Scottish Conservatives are praying for Yousaf. He will have even less appeal to their 2019 voters than Sturgeon.

Scottish Labour and the Greens however are praying for Forbes who will turn social liberals and leftwingers off the SNP

you are so right HY. Absolutely spot on. Labour need to ease up on her now to ensure she gets the job.

I’m not easing up on her. Bloody Katey is the Scottish Putin.

The opportunity to traduce, mock and bully to general applause a young, female, pretty, nice, clever, Cambridge educated, principled, modest parent with a new baby is quite rare and must be taken in full whenever it arises.

The sight is utterly distasteful.

Where do I join so that I can vote for her?

Kate's mistake is that she is Christian. Any other religion and we would be hearing about why it doesn't matter and how Kate (although her name would be different) has made it clear she would keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation.

The thing is though, she has made it clear that she wouldn't keep her personal beliefs out of political legislation. That's why she is being criticised, not because she is Christian.

I think it's fair to say that Margaret Thatcher very much let her personal religious beliefs influence legislation.

Should she also have been disbarred for her beliefs?

Thatcher won elections (to be an MP, to be party leader, to be PM) which gave her the right to influence legislation. Forbes, if she wins this election, can do the same. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

What people are saying is that she's probably buggered up her chances of winning the election and that is not a bad thing (nor necessarily a good thing, just a thing).

To paraphrase, the electorate are always right. If they elect Forbes because of/in spite of her religious beliefs, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine.

They cewrtainly did, or at least the electorate in Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch. She has a very creditable majority in her FPTP seat.

Yes - and she should stay as their MSP for as long as they want her. If the SNP want her as leader, that's good too. If Scotland wants her as FM at the next election, also good.

If it turns out that the SNP don't want her as leader, in part because of her religious views, that's also fine with me.

You're missing out another election. That for FM of the MSPs in the Holyrood Parliament. Just because she or anyone becomes SNP leader doesn't make them FM, as I have said before but bears repeating. It's not Westminster where the opposition has to actively move against the new PM.

Yes the weirdo greens could stiff them , they will want paid in gold for sure.

Indeed. I|f I were betting, I'd want to check the details. FM or SNP Leader? Not the same thing at all.

Erly said:

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dear God!

Ross is putting an ultimatum to the SNP membership.

Vote Humza or we’ll not vote for them as FM.
Embedded video

https://twitter.com/scotfax/status/1628072041675988992?s=20

While Ross Greer doesn’t endorse any specific candidate he does say whoever is elected should pursue GRR through the courts - only Humza has said he’d do that.

The Greens are in no position to make demands

I thought they were. Presumably Greer is confident Humza will win.

Greer seems very quick to say what's in his head. Hardly a desideratum in government or any other position of responsibility except maybe shock jock.

Perhaps he's a cinch to wind up into a tizzy?

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/ross-greer-put-place-after-29073436

28 Jan 2023

"The Scottish Green MSP vented his fury after a paper reported on bizarre and false reports that children at a primary school were identifying as cats.

The Press and Journal featured a story with a council response to the bizarre claims about Banff Academy students meowing and defecting in feline litter boxes, but the MSP was quick to slate it."

He accused the journalists of spreading "Qanon" style moral panic amidst heated debate about the presence of identity politics and gender ideology in Scotlands schools.

A video appearing to show human waste on a toilet floor was shared alongside claims children were protesting over not having litter trays. The claims hit social media and 'spread like wild fire'.

However, Aberdeenshire Council has branded the rumours as misinformation, stating: 'We are aware of false rumours circulating online suggesting that Banff Academy has pupils identifying as cats requesting litter trays in the Academy’s toilets.' "

The P&J got the story from the National:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23276574.aberdeenshire-school-forced-deny-children-identifying-cats/

The funny thing is that Greer is actually right! The furries in schools thing has been pushed by QAnoner Marjorie Taylor Greene.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-gop-candidate-furries-schools/

When my son was in Primary school he, and several of his friends, self identified as space rockets. The scamps.

CarlottaVance said:

The co-convenor of Out for Independence, the SNP's LGBTQ+ wing, has submitted a formal complaint to the party's National Secretary after Kate Forbes said that "a trans woman is a biological male who identifies as a woman."

https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1628025219280523265?s=20

The witch's coven have it in for her big time, the clowns don't even know what a woman is either.

Driver said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Heathener said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

Leon said:

Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off

She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous

She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis

I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it

In ten years time, who knows…

It is rarer than a hen's teeth that I agree with you but on this occasion I do.

It's not merely the clutch of repulsive views which somehow manage to alienate huge swathes of society all at the same time, but the ineptitude and naivety of opening her mouth on such matters on day 2 of her leadership campaign.

It's like she launched and then decided to drill a series of holes in her own hull

The other way of looking at it is that she is being completely honest and upfront with who and what she is and what she believes in.

After all, the first thing to come up with the Greens will be the GRR.

Yeah but this has actually helped trans rights.

It's shown the vitriol against trans people for what it is: the same bigotry against gays, blacks, unmarried etc which has been the hallmark of such nastiness for decades.

In 20, 30, and 40 years time trans people will be enjoying the same rights as many gays do now and the last remaining rump of bigoted old white men will be searching around for another victim on whom to pour out their bile as they rail against the dying of the light.

What rights do gay or straight people have that trans people don’t?

Does the same apply to pedophiles? Surely they’re an oppressed minority whose rights are ignored? Or do we draw the line at pedophiles because they would affect the rights of others - children? But trans people affecting the rights of women is just fine and dandy?

Oh dear, you went there.

Answer the question.

What do we do when the rights of one group impinge on the rights of another?

Pretend there is no conflict “no debate” or discuss it?

(Sighs theatrically)

By equating the two like that, you are trying to equate trans people and pedophiles. I wonder why you picked 'pedophiles' and not something like 'criminals' ?

Would you ever say: "What rights do gay or straight people have that black/Asian people don’t? Does the same apply to pedophiles? "

So I will not answer the question, as it is a false question, asked with bad intent.

Edit: to make it clear: trans people != pedophiles.

You pretty much did answer the question, tbf: you pretend there is no conflict.

knock out in round 2 to Carlotta, towel has been thrown in

Razedabode said:

Maybe Forbes needs to be brutally honest.

If she does win, I guess people would tend to feel she was honest in taking Indy forward / discussing it

Stuartinromford said:

Carnyx said:

MoonRabbit said:

MaxPB said:

I really expected it would be Labour that would self destructed over blokes in dresses. Well done to the SNP for proving me wrong.

. .

Whohe?

Someone who has seen the latest polling;

🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
Labour lead is twenty-two points in latest results from Deltapoll.
Con 28% (-)
Lab 50% (+2)
Lib Dem 9% (+1)
Other 12% (-4)
Fieldwork: 17th - 20th February
Sample: 1,079 GB adults
(Changes from 10th - 13th February 2023)

https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1628073405697196032

Meanwhile, back in Westminster, the ERG plotting to make things worse

Seriously. Can that particular grouping head off and join UKIP

The Tories has got decades of rebuilding after this. If it even exists

Oh look, more utterly hilarious blaming of Tory back bench groups (add them to Tory members, Liz Truss writing articles, and Boris) for the Tories' current woes. If only people weren't so taken up with these loathsome specimens, they'd no doubt realise what a great job Rishi Sunak is doing on... on... well, but he's doing OK on... Oh.

Fairliered said:

As an SNP member for 48 years, my priorities when choosing a leader will be:
1. Independence. It will need to be the highest priority of any candidate I choose. I will also expect them to stop pussyfooting around the issue can put maximum pressure on Westminster by all non violent means. We should be reaching out to other Independence parties, not repelling them.
2. The Scottish economy. The economy needs revitalised. We should be maximising our oil and gas production to take full advantage of the Ukraine war. We should not be considering policies like the flawed bottle deposit scheme that will damage business, particularly small business, and lead to increased consumer prices and reduced choice. We should be ensuring that our energy exports are profitable to Scotland. If the above chases the Greens away, so much the better.
3. Equality for all, not just for minorities.

Only after all that will I think about moral views, which I believe should be personal. Such matters should always be a vote of conscience, not a whipped vote.

I suspect that other SNP members will have similar views.

You have only one choice then Fairlie, very simple.

Well I'm back visiting the folks and I've just scored a half of bitter for £1.23. Red Wall rules ok!

FF43 said:

Monkeys said:

FF43 said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Phil said:

GIN1138 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Kate Forbes doubling down on this on
@BBCr4today
asking “are we saying high office is barred to people of faith?”

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1627953251223015424

Is she trying to tank?

At least she's being honest.

Agreed, I admire her for sticking to her principles. The answer to her question is probably yes however: If the tenets of your faith put you out of step with the mainstream of UK opinion on social issues & you’re public about it, you’re going to have problems politically. There’s a reason Alasdair Campbell cut off questions about Blair’s faith with “We don’t do God”.

The UK is very socially liberal these days on many questions that in the past would have been much more controversial & that holds true across the political spectrum. It’s one of the reasons I’m still proud to be British.

We should just be honest then and say "if you hold strong religious views, you cannot be Prime Minister / FM as your views disqualify you from being a possible appointment."

Instead, we have this hypocritical standpoint where we pretend to be all tolerant and accepting but once someone comes along with such views, we then say why they are not acceptable.

Actually it isn't. If you want to be a leader of a party and a government you are required to defend the policies of your party and the decisions of your government. You can't do the job otherwise, but it is the same for everyone.

Kate Forbes seems to think her moral principles take precedence over her colleagues' That's a problem.

Does she though? She's just saying she has certain beliefs, not that they've affected governance.

At any rate, this is exactly how radical movements fail, they fracture and split over things that have nothing to do with the central goal. Oh well! We are where we are.

The correct answer for Kate Forbes as a church-going aspiring leader of the SNP and Scottish government to the question, "Do you support gay marriage?" is, Yes. Unequivocally, yes. "Do you support gender recognition by self-identification?" Yes. In this case there may be some technical issues to resolve around implementation but the principle's accepted.

These are SNP policies implemented by her government and passed in parliament. If she can't defend them she can't be leader. It's a necessary part of her job.

What a silly post. That suggests that Churchill should have been aligned fully with Chamberlain's appeasement policy when he took office. Different leader, different opinions.

Burgessian said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RandallFlagg said:

YouGov
@YouGov
Latest Scottish Westminster voting intention (17-20 February)

SNP: 38% (-4 since 23-26 Jan*)
Labour: 29% (=)
Conservative: 19% (+4)
Lib Dem: 6% (=)
Green: 4% (+1)
Reform UK: 2% (-1)
Other: 2% (=)

SNP vote share drops below 40%, but SLAB vote share remains unchanged. It should be mentioned, however, the fieldwork was conducted BEFORE Forbes' social conservative views came to light.

Furthermore, there is a new R&W Red Wall poll.

Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton
Labour leads by 28% in the Red Wall, enough to win ALL 40 of these seats in the next GE.

Red Wall VI (19 Feb):

Labour 55% (+3)
Conservative 27% (-2)
Reform UK 10% (+2)
Lib Dem 4% (-1)
Green 3% (-1)
Plaid Cymru 1% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 5 Feb

Well, there's a turn up for the books.
The Starmer & Sarwar show not yet setting the heather ablaze.

My expectation would be that the change will have been driven by women unimpressed with Nicola's GRR Bill and its implications for their rights and freedoms. As the Tories have been the only party to oppose these (with minimal exceptions) and have blocked the bill by s35 they have got the credit. Or it might just be a somewhat louder than usual noise.

If it isn't it has implications for the leadership race. Yousaf seems fully on board the Sturgeon express with this one explaining how outrageous the s35 order is and would clearly support a judicial review of the decision. Forbes, equally clearly, wouldn't and would be delighted to park this issue somewhere quiet. If Forbes prevails the Tory gain may prove very short lived but I suspect that is only the start of their problems.

Forbes is the Scottish Tories' worst nightmare: she will attract a lot of tartan Tories who were fed up of Nicolas eccentric combination of socialism and statism. If Forbes wins I think no Scottish Tory seats becomes a real possibility. Which might, of course, prove to be a highly Pyrrhic victory if SLAB recovers and takes back a chunk of seats in the central belt.

Useless Yousaf, in contrast, might well allow a serious Scottish Tory recovery back to the giddy heights of Ruth Davidson's peak but might make things a little more difficult for SLAB.

While I imagine the Tories will be praying for a Yousaf victory I find it hard to believe that a significant number of Scots Tory voters would defect to an SNP led by Forbes. The one thing that distinguishes Tory voters in Scotland is attachment to the Union.

BTW - 19% for the Tories seems v high in the circs. They'll be pleased with that if its anywhere near accurate.

It would certainly keep people like me on board, as the Union is the most important thing to me. But it wouldn't take many Conservative voters in the remaining seats to change for those seats to fall. I think she would get more than enough.

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

Heathener said:

Malmesbury said:

Heathener said:

Leon said:

Surely the biggest practical lesson of the Kate Forbes debacle is that she is really quite shit at basic politics. Otherwise she would not be in this mess on day 2 of her leadership campaign. As Liz Truss showed, it is FAR harder to be a leader than a minister and Kate Forbes would be First Minister from the off

She is way too young, naive, inexperienced. She needs to go away and mature and toughen up. She is 32 with a little baby. It is ridiculous

She would be a terrible FM as things stand and the Spectator might like her Tory views but she’d be a disaster for the Nats, and she would end up in calamities like this on a weekly basis

I say that sincerely. I was worried about her as a threat to the union. She’d be no such thing. She’s rubbish at politics. That’s it

In ten years time, who knows…

It is rarer than a hen's teeth that I agree with you but on this occasion I do.

It's not merely the clutch of repulsive views which somehow manage to alienate huge swathes of society all at the same time, but the ineptitude and naivety of opening her mouth on such matters on day 2 of her leadership campaign.

It's like she launched and then decided to drill a series of holes in her own hull

The other way of looking at it is that she is being completely honest and upfront with who and what she is and what she believes in.

After all, the first thing to come up with the Greens will be the GRR.

Yeah but this has actually helped trans rights.

It's shown the vitriol against trans people for what it is: the same bigotry against gays, blacks, unmarried etc which has been the hallmark of such nastiness for decades.

In 20, 30, and 40 years time trans people will be enjoying the same rights as many gays do now and the last remaining rump of bigoted old white men will be searching around for another victim on whom to pour out their bile as they rail against the dying of the light.

What rights do gay or straight people have that trans people don’t?

Does the same apply to pedophiles? Surely they’re an oppressed minority whose rights are ignored? Or do we draw the line at pedophiles because they would affect the rights of others - children? But trans people affecting the rights of women is just fine and dandy?

Oh dear, you went there.

Answer the question.

What do we do when the rights of one group impinge on the rights of another?

Pretend there is no conflict “no debate” or discuss it?

(Sighs theatrically)

By equating the two like that, you are trying to equate trans people and pedophiles. I wonder why you picked 'pedophiles' and not something like 'criminals' ?

Would you ever say: "What rights do gay or straight people have that black/Asian people don’t? Does the same apply to pedophiles? "

So I will not answer the question, as it is a false question, asked with bad intent.

Edit: to make it clear: trans people != pedophiles.

As ever ducking the question and casting aspersions. The pedophile point was that their “rights” are quite rightly circumscribed by society to protect the rights of others.

When the rights of one group affect the rights of others what should we do?

Shout “No Debate” or discuss it?

But since you bring up criminals, is double rapist Isla Bryson a woman?

Why did you use 'pedophiles' in your question? What did you hope to achieve by using it?

Pedophiles rights are constrained by society, because they are criminals. Trans people, as a group, are not criminals. Therefore equating the two is odd.

As for rights being taken away: as far as I'm aware, you and others want to stop them using toilets whilst out in public, as they've done for as long as there have been public toilets. That's a rather fundamental 'right' taken away, again IMO.

And we are discussing it., if you had not noticed. I am not in favour of "no debate": but if you come on here trying to insinuate that trans people are bad, then I'll 'debate' with you. Even if you laughably accuse me of 'mansplaining'.

I’m not “equating the two” I’m trying to get you to understand that when groups rights collide there needs to be a discussion. You’re the one who obsesses about toilets. When have you ever acknowledged that trans rights might infringe on women’s rights?

How about this for an issue:

Until recently I would not have believed that the only people speaking up for girls who refuse to be subjected to sexual crimes (voyeurism and flashing) without complaint, and in what are supposed to be their own spaces, would be conservative Christians.…

Standing up for girls' right to set and enforce their own boundaries is core feminist work. But America's mainstream feminist organisations have abdicated - and worse, colluded in the mass legalisation of sexual crimes against women and girls, in the name of "gender identity"

https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1627984694980538368?s=20

Oh, and is double rapist Isla Bryson a woman?

Oh, come off it. Sadly, you equate trans people with pedophiles. In a similar manner, one might equate TERFs with murderers. But I think that might annoy you.

I am not 'obsessing about toilets'. It's a clear and simple example of where your viewpoint falls into dangerous ground: as sadly shown by Ms Free of this parish. It is unworkable, which is why anti-trans people get into such trouble with it.

Trans rights may infringe on women's rights; but women's rights might infringe on trans rights. That's the whole point. It's a balance. And speaking for my own views, I'm not wholly on one side. In sports, for example, I'm happy for transwomen to be banned from women's competition, but only with good reason, and the default should be inclusion. That's probably not a million miles away from your view.

Mrs J is a feminist. She comes from a country where women's rights were, and still are, much more restricted than over here. She even lived in Iran for a while when young, post-revolution. Yet her views are more pro-trans than mine, and I fear a million miles away from yours.

I know you're well meaning with this; it's just that your one-eyed views spells real danger for a small segment of society.