LAB extend lead to 18% in the “Red Wall” – politicalbetting.com

Stocky said:

Carnyx said:

Stocky said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Wow!

That Indian Council of Scotland and the UK, along with the Muslim Council of the UK, have issued an extraordinary joint statement saying that:

"The Indian community in Scotland would live in fear if Humza Yousaf becomes First Minister."


https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1628310817966809089?s=20

I double checked - the statement is on their Facebook page.

Not a surprise if you live in Scotland

I don't understand why this guy is odds-on favourite. I smell a campaign against Forbes. Is she value now?

He's fav because Ms Forbes looks as if she has done a kamikaze (I'm not quite so sure) and the southern media haven't bothered to look up Ms Regan and do some research instead of relying on lazy sterotypes about island hellfire preachers like something out of Wicker Man (the FCS, for one thing, not being a specifically island kirk). I don't think the betting is likely to be particularly well informed by the standard of such things.

Well I'm laying Yousaf at these odds.

There is Regan and I'm not convinced that Forbes is out of it In the current climate - and he is surely vulnerable to another candidate trowing their hat in in the next two days.

Dura_Ace said:

CarlottaVance said:

ThomasNashe said:

Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.

Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:

I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….

The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.

50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less

https://twitter.com/AshReganSNP/status/1627723019668815877?s=20

Nothing better sums up the yearning of an occupied country. fighting for its identity that the conversion of the A9 into a dual carriageway. It's going to be the foundational epic of the new nation.

Dura_Ace said:

CarlottaVance said:

ThomasNashe said:

Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.

Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:

I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….

The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.

50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less

https://twitter.com/AshReganSNP/status/1627723019668815877?s=20

Nothing better sums up the yearning of an occupied country. fighting for its identity that the conversion of the A9 into a dual carriageway. It's going to be the foundational epic of the new nation.

CD13 said:

We went to a lesbian wedding a year or two ago. A pleasant and peaceful affair. Having spent a couple of decades playing rugby in my youth, I'm amazed any woman is heterosexual.

But as a committed Catholic, I'd vote for Forbes or Tim Farron. No problem with heretics at all.

Scott_xP said:

Does all this mean Forbes has no hope of becoming first minister? Not necessarily. But I think she and her aides may have misidentified the resistance she is facing. Secular voters are fine with religion as culture. We’re a’ Jock Tamson’s bairns. They are even fine with religion as a moral purpose in politics. It is the fire and brimstone they have a problem with. The weeping and gnashing of teeth. The smiting. Leviticus is a bit of a downer.

Forbes needs to make some things clear. Although a product of fundamentalist Presbyterianism, she is not its prisoner. Although a believer, she is not a proselytiser. Although she is living a religious life, the rest of us can live whatever lives we goddam like, and she will defend our right to do so. Is she capable of giving those answers?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kenny-farquharson-is-scotland-ready-for-a-wee-free-leader-8vbcv28c3

CarlottaVance said:

Eabhal said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Wow!

That Indian Council of Scotland and the UK, along with the Muslim Council of the UK, have issued an extraordinary joint statement saying that:

"The Indian community in Scotland would live in fear if Humza Yousaf becomes First Minister."


https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1628310817966809089?s=20

I double checked - the statement is on their Facebook page.

Not a surprise if you live in Scotland

I can't find any evidence of the "Muslim Council of the UK", and think it's an attempt to conflate with the Muslim Council of Britain.

Still digging into the Indian Council of Scotland, but they don't have a large online presence, at the very least.

The Indian Council of Scotland are on Facebook with 1k followers. As are the Muslim Council of the U.K. which appeared yesterday and has 3 followers….

ydoethur said:

Dura_Ace said:

CarlottaVance said:

ThomasNashe said:

Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.

Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:

I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….

The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.

50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less

https://twitter.com/AshReganSNP/status/1627723019668815877?s=20

Nothing better sums up the yearning of an occupied country. fighting for its identity that the conversion of the A9 into a dual carriageway. It's going to be the foundational epic of the new nation.

Come on DA, aren't you just a little bit inspired by the idea of bombing up the newly dualled A9 at 175mph?

Although if you drive that slowly be prepared to be overtaken by all the locals.

Eabhal said:

Just on the dinosaurs and Forbes thing - there are literal dinosaur footprints on Skye, in her constituency.

If I were an enterprising journalist, I'd be doing a piece to camera from there this morning.

HYUFD said:

By contrast in 1959 only 45% would vote for an atheist

'Oct 1959: If the party of your choice nominated a generally well-qualified person as parliamentary candidate, would you vote for him/her if he/she were one of the following?
Roman Catholic 82% Yes
Woman 76%
Jew 71%
Coloured person 61%
Atheist 45%'


https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1627617259932860417?s=20

YBarddCwsc said:

SouthamObserver said:

What we are currently discovering is just how good a leader of the SNP Nicola Sturgeon has been. Of course, that is very different to saying she has been a good First Minister.

I agree ... except a good leader has thought about succession planning.

Sturgeon was truly exceptional as a leader of a political party.

MikeL said:

Angus Robertson most recently matched at 14 on Betfair.

Suggests at least someone thinks there is still a chance he may stand.

bigjohnowls said:

Casino_Royale said:

Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.

Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.

Shall I tell you how bad Kate Forbes is?

If I lived in Scotland and she was SNP leader.

I would have to consider voting Labour.

She is that bad.

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

By contrast in 1959 only 45% would vote for an atheist

'Oct 1959: If the party of your choice nominated a generally well-qualified person as parliamentary candidate, would you vote for him/her if he/she were one of the following?
Roman Catholic 82% Yes
Woman 76%
Jew 71%
Coloured person 61%
Atheist 45%'


https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1627617259932860417?s=20

Srill true in parts of the US, I think. A friend from Alabama deeply envies British culture for our indifference to the atheism of politicians. That said, I'm not sure how he'd feel about freedom to be very religious.

For those of us who like to think we have small-l liberal values, it's tricky territory to navigate. I feel that if Forbes keeps her religion entirely separate from her policies, then I don't care what she believes in - it is literally none of our business. But with the militantly assertive religions, I'm not sure it's actually possible to be a sincere member and not have it influence your policies as a politician? Say the incident with the freedom of a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple came up in Scotland and she had to take a view. How could she not be influenced by being dubious about gay couples?

So, while respecting her honesty and her right to belief, I do think it's a genuine snag to being a national leader. By contrast, Hinduism has some odd beliefs, but in its British form it doesn't seem especially insistent on its followers pushing its teachings in every sphere. Humza will escape serious criticism on that count unless he can be found saying "As a Hindu, I have to oppose..."

malcolmg said:

bigjohnowls said:

Casino_Royale said:

Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.

Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.

Shall I tell you how bad Kate Forbes is?

If I lived in Scotland and she was SNP leader.

I would have to consider voting Labour.

She is that bad.

If your granny had baws she would be your grandpa as well

ydoethur said:

CarlottaVance said:

ThomasNashe said:

Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.

Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:

I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….

The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.

50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less

https://twitter.com/AshReganSNP/status/1627723019668815877?s=20

To be fair, that's a reasonable programme. Not that I think Scotland would enjoy the reality of independence, but the third point is sound in constitutional theory. She's right about the roads. The first point is fair enough as long as she's also thought about how to manage the transition when the oil runs out, which may not be that far away.

She may have crazy stuff, like hanging all Welshmen in the Highlands, to come out but I don't see how anyone could take serious issue with the published stuff.

Edited because I didn't want people to think I have no issue with hanging Welshmen...

Eabhal said:

Just on the dinosaurs and Forbes thing - there are literal dinosaur footprints on Skye, in her constituency.

If I were an enterprising journalist, I'd be doing a piece to camera from there this morning.

DougSeal said:

Sandpit said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

Port Moresby nearly impossible to reach. Maybe one of the Stans? Uzbekistan

Which parts of the Middle East have you been to? Jordan is supposed to be fun if you haven’t been.

Done Jordan. I’ve done Jordan so much I have slept in a car park in Amman. True story

Didn’t know we were both car park aficionados! Love a good car park me. I am only four away from parking in every NCP car park in Kent for at least two hours. The wife’s going to make me a nice steak as a reward when I’ve done them all. At the moment, though, there’s an argument about the Medway Unitary Authority. Does that count as Kent for these purposes? I say not but the wife insists it does and won’t buy the steak unless I park in all the NCPs in Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham. Personally I think it’s unfair - what next? Are we going to repeal the 1964 changes meaning I have to do Bromley and Bexley too? I think that would be unreasonable.

Admire you for doing Jordan though. How many car parks are there in Amman?

There are car parks in Amman? Last time I was there, cars were simply abandoned outside the destination, with little regard to whether they were double or even triple parked, nor whether they were blocking a main road full of traffic. It’s the only place I’ve ever been, where I didn’t want to drive. I ended up going around in the back of my customer’s rather nice S-Class. He didn’t like to drive either!

Leon said he slept in one. Nothing Leon says ever proves to be incorrect. Which is why you and I are the only two people left on Earth, eating insects in an post nuclear irradiated wasteland, cowering from super Covid infected AI bots, but at least Liz Truss surprised on the upside.

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Eabhal said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Wow!

That Indian Council of Scotland and the UK, along with the Muslim Council of the UK, have issued an extraordinary joint statement saying that:

"The Indian community in Scotland would live in fear if Humza Yousaf becomes First Minister."


https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1628310817966809089?s=20

I double checked - the statement is on their Facebook page.

Not a surprise if you live in Scotland

I can't find any evidence of the "Muslim Council of the UK", and think it's an attempt to conflate with the Muslim Council of Britain.

Still digging into the Indian Council of Scotland, but they don't have a large online presence, at the very least.

The Indian Council of Scotland are on Facebook with 1k followers. As are the Muslim Council of the U.K. which appeared yesterday and has 3 followers….

Quite. Interesting to see how many PBers fell for that straight off.

Who fell for what exactly?

We are just sitting back watching the clownshow, as Candidate A hits herself in the face with a cake full of cuttlefish-spunk, and then Candidate B gets attacked by a dwarf dressed as a Zoroastrian donkey, and candidate C rules themselves out because they have 9 million quid resting in their Icelandic Tartan Bond ISA account, a fact known to Candidate D who is actually the ghost of Alex Salmond, living in Bermuda

Carnyx said:

Never forgotten the Satrap in State trailing behind the hearse up the High Street in Edinburgh with the crowds silent except for the odd sarcastic remark or boo.

Stocky said:

malcolmg said:

bigjohnowls said:

Casino_Royale said:

Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.

Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.

Shall I tell you how bad Kate Forbes is?

If I lived in Scotland and she was SNP leader.

I would have to consider voting Labour.

She is that bad.

If your granny had baws she would be your grandpa as well

So far this morning I have had to google "baws" and "cilice".

I really must get some work done.

malcolmg said:

Sandpit said:

Apparently Putin tried to test launch a nuclear-capable intercontinental missile while Biden was in Ukraine - but it failed to go off.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/22/russia-ukraine-war-latest-news-putin-biden-treaty-nato/

The Ukranians have also got their hands on something new, hitting a large Russian ammo dump last night that would have been out of range of HIMARS.

They seem to be very good at lashing things together and making them work well.

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

By contrast in 1959 only 45% would vote for an atheist

'Oct 1959: If the party of your choice nominated a generally well-qualified person as parliamentary candidate, would you vote for him/her if he/she were one of the following?
Roman Catholic 82% Yes
Woman 76%
Jew 71%
Coloured person 61%
Atheist 45%'


https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1627617259932860417?s=20

Srill true in parts of the US, I think. A friend from Alabama deeply envies British culture for our indifference to the atheism of politicians. That said, I'm not sure how he'd feel about freedom to be very religious.

For those of us who like to think we have small-l liberal values, it's tricky territory to navigate. I feel that if Forbes keeps her religion entirely separate from her policies, then I don't care what she believes in - it is literally none of our business. But with the militantly assertive religions, I'm not sure it's actually possible to be a sincere member and not have it influence your policies as a politician? Say the incident with the freedom of a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple came up in Scotland and she had to take a view. How could she not be influenced by being dubious about gay couples?

So, while respecting her honesty and her right to belief, I do think it's a genuine snag to being a national leader. By contrast, Hinduism has some odd beliefs, but in its British form it doesn't seem especially insistent on its followers pushing its teachings in every sphere. Humza will escape serious criticism on that count unless he can be found saying "As a Hindu, I have to oppose..."

OnlyLivingBoy said:

malcolmg said:

bigjohnowls said:

Casino_Royale said:

Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.

Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.

Shall I tell you how bad Kate Forbes is?

If I lived in Scotland and she was SNP leader.

I would have to consider voting Labour.

She is that bad.

If your granny had baws she would be your grandpa as well

What about if she self id'ed as your grandpa?

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Monkeys said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Malmesbury said:

numbertwelve said:

CarlottaVance said:

That'll help.....

The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....

.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.

“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...

“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”

Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.

Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.

Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.

The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.

The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.

Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.

Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.

She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.

And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.

If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.

You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.

Don't be stupid.

There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.

There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.

Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.

You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).

Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.

Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.

You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.

I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.

To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.

If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.

Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?

Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.

Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.

Why should she separate her politics from her religion?

Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.

There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

Eabhal said:

Just on the dinosaurs and Forbes thing - there are literal dinosaur footprints on Skye, in her constituency.

If I were an enterprising journalist, I'd be doing a piece to camera from there this morning.

Dinosaurs? She didn't actually go there did she?

For all that I think she's scuppered her chances, I'd be sad if she dropped out. It might be that the membership as a whole want Forbes and they should get their say.

(Perfectly within her rights to withdraw, of course, but it would be a shame, I think.)

Yes, it'll be interesting to see how she does with the members.

Which PBers are members btw? Do we have many? Who are they voting for?

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

By contrast in 1959 only 45% would vote for an atheist

'Oct 1959: If the party of your choice nominated a generally well-qualified person as parliamentary candidate, would you vote for him/her if he/she were one of the following?
Roman Catholic 82% Yes
Woman 76%
Jew 71%
Coloured person 61%
Atheist 45%'


https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1627617259932860417?s=20

Srill true in parts of the US, I think. A friend from Alabama deeply envies British culture for our indifference to the atheism of politicians. That said, I'm not sure how he'd feel about freedom to be very religious.

For those of us who like to think we have small-l liberal values, it's tricky territory to navigate. I feel that if Forbes keeps her religion entirely separate from her policies, then I don't care what she believes in - it is literally none of our business. But with the militantly assertive religions, I'm not sure it's actually possible to be a sincere member and not have it influence your policies as a politician? Say the incident with the freedom of a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple came up in Scotland and she had to take a view. How could she not be influenced by being dubious about gay couples?

So, while respecting her honesty and her right to belief, I do think it's a genuine snag to being a national leader. By contrast, Hinduism has some odd beliefs, but in its British form it doesn't seem especially insistent on its followers pushing its teachings in every sphere. Humza will escape serious criticism on that count unless he can be found saying "As a Hindu, I have to oppose..."

Humza is Muslim though not Hindu

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

HYUFD said:

Badenoch says she admires Forbes' honesty

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/21/kemi-badenoch-admire-kate-forbes-honest/

Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?

Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.

Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.

Protection of the right to worship as you chose.

I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Monkeys said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Malmesbury said:

numbertwelve said:

CarlottaVance said:

That'll help.....

The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....

.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.

“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...

“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”

Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.

Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.

Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.

The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.

The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.

Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.

Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.

She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.

And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.

If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.

You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.

Don't be stupid.

There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.

There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.

Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.

You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).

Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.

Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.

You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.

I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.

To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.

If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.

Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?

Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.

Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.

Why should she separate her politics from her religion?

Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.

There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.

You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.

We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Monkeys said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Malmesbury said:

numbertwelve said:

CarlottaVance said:

That'll help.....

The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....

.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.

“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...

“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”

Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.

Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.

Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.

The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.

The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.

Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.

Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.

She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.

And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.

If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.

You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.

Don't be stupid.

There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.

There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.

Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.

You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).

Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.

Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.

You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.

I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.

To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.

If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.

Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?

Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.

Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.

Why should she separate her politics from her religion?

Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.

There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.

You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.

We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.

Selebian said:

malcolmg said:

Selebian said:

malcolmg said:

bigjohnowls said:

Casino_Royale said:

Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.

Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.

Shall I tell you how bad Kate Forbes is?

If I lived in Scotland and she was SNP leader.

I would have to consider voting Labour.

She is that bad.

If your granny had baws she would be your grandpa as well

In that eventuality, would it still hold that ye cannae shove yer granny aff a bus?

Only a Tory would do that in any event

That would imply a Tory being on a bus. I find that hard to believe.

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

CarlottaVance said:

Wow!

That Indian Council of Scotland and the UK, along with the Muslim Council of the UK, have issued an extraordinary joint statement saying that:

"The Indian community in Scotland would live in fear if Humza Yousaf becomes First Minister."


https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1628310817966809089?s=20

I double checked - the statement is on their Facebook page.

To quote perhaps the greatest Scotsman of them all, this is like watching men committing suicide.

Who is the greatest Scotsman of them all?

I checked the Collected Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, but I could not find this.

'Frazer! James Frazer! Spelled B A S T A R D.'

(In the episode 'The Test.' The latter quote is from 'A Wilson (Manager)?')

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy.
The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.

A New National Purpose: Innovation Can Power the Future of Britain
https://institute.global/policy/new-national-purpose-innovation-can-power-future-britain

That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.

They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigelb said:

A Wealthy ‘Anti-Woke’ Activist Joins the 2024 Presidential Field
Vivek Ramaswamy, 37, has made a name for himself in right-wing circles by opposing corporate efforts to advance political, social and environmental causes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/us/politics/vivek-ramaswamy-presidential-candidate-2024.html

Only a matter of time before he has that vital Muslim Council of the UK endorsement.

CarlottaVance said:

Thread:

NI Protocol update: I understand the deal was basically done last weekend, all the technical stuff included (give or take a few loose ends with text).

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1628328544282505219?s=20

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

HYUFD said:

Badenoch says she admires Forbes' honesty

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/21/kemi-badenoch-admire-kate-forbes-honest/

Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?

Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.

Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.

Protection of the right to worship as you chose.

I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.

No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.

Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.

It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.

There is also the question of local politics. Do we ban people with religious views from holding power there? There are plenty of areas where allowing religious beliefs to influence politics has a very real effect e.g. education, social services etc.

@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.

Who wants to go first at saying that?

You seem to have missed my point. Despite disagreeing with her views, I am quite OK about Kate Fobes as a national politician.

I have no problem with similar views expressed by African Christians or Asian Muslims either.

All these views are fine as long as people respect the law and do not try to legislate their morality onto other people.

It isn't possible to keep belief, politics, morality, legislation, secularity, religion, worldview all is separate boxes.

Religion is merely a subsample of 'beliefs' generally. Certainty is so elusive that most of what we think are beliefs…
..Gay marriage is similar. Some people (a minority at the moment which Forbes and I are both in though we probably differ about most things) think that marriage is better defined such that it is only between one man and one woman, and that is objectively better for society. Genuine beliefs differ. Gosh. Fancy that.

If certainty is so elusive, how do you believe such a thing (which seems pretty daft to me, FWIW) objectively ?

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Thread:

NI Protocol update: I understand the deal was basically done last weekend, all the technical stuff included (give or take a few loose ends with text).

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1628328544282505219?s=20

What's the point?

The DUP and ERG will rebel, and Starmer will have to clear up this moment.

algarkirk said:

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

HYUFD said:

Badenoch says she admires Forbes' honesty

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/21/kemi-badenoch-admire-kate-forbes-honest/

Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?

Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.

Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.

Protection of the right to worship as you chose.

I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.

No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.

Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.

It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.

There is also the question of local politics. Do we ban people with religious views from holding power there? There are plenty of areas where allowing religious beliefs to influence politics has a very real effect e.g. education, social services etc.

@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.

Who wants to go first at saying that?

You seem to have missed my point. Despite disagreeing with her views, I am quite OK about Kate Fobes as a national politician.

I have no problem with similar views expressed by African Christians or Asian Muslims either.

All these views are fine as long as people respect the law and do not try to legislate their morality onto other people.

It isn't possible to keep belief, politics, morality, legislation, secularity, religion, worldview all is separate boxes.

Religion is merely a subsample of 'beliefs' generally. Certainty is so elusive that most of what we think are beliefs…
..Gay marriage is similar. Some people (a minority at the moment which Forbes and I are both in though we probably differ about most things) think that marriage is better defined such that it is only between one man and one woman, and that is objectively better for society. Genuine beliefs differ. Gosh. Fancy that.

If certainty is so elusive, how do you believe such a thing (which seems pretty daft to me, FWIW) objectively ?

Simples. It is a belief of mine that the physical world exists beyond my own mind and experience. It still exists even if I don't. Notoriously this is not provable to everyone's satisfaction (see Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant's first critique etc) though it is the Common Sense view of the world (eg the much ignored Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid and the man in the street).

Like almost everyone else except a small group of solipsists I have beliefs about what is the case in the world even if I were not in it. This is conventionally called 'beliefs about objectivity', or, as in Thomas Nagel's masterpiece 'The View from Nowhere'.

So, torturing children for fun would still be wrong even if I had never existed. I hope you believe the same. When I meet people who don't share this view I hide the children and lock up the spoons.

TheScreamingEagles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Thread:

NI Protocol update: I understand the deal was basically done last weekend, all the technical stuff included (give or take a few loose ends with text).

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1628328544282505219?s=20

What's the point?

The DUP and ERG will rebel, and Starmer will have to clear up this moment.

The DUP hold a veto on Stormont resuming.

If the proposed deal hasn't got them on side, then its not a deal, just as if a proposed deal didn't have Sinn Fein on side.

That's the whole frigging point of the Good Friday Agreement. Either both sides of the divide are happy, or nothing happens.

I have a solution to the impasse.

Hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on the new deal.

Will of the people and all that jazz.

Nigelb said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Monkeys said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Malmesbury said:

numbertwelve said:

CarlottaVance said:

That'll help.....

The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....

.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.

“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...

“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”

Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.

Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.

Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.

The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.

The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.

Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.

Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.

She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.

And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.

If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.

You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.

Don't be stupid.

There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.

There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.

Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.

You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).

Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.

Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.

You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.

I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.

To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.

If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.

Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?

Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.

Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.

Why should she separate her politics from her religion?

Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.

There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.

You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.

We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.

Nope.
No one suggested a ‘ban’ - that’s her supporters’ spin - just said that they wouldn’t vote for her as leader, and that it seems possible that a majority if SNP members won’t either.

And most are opining it’s quite likely she’ll get a ministerial post if not elected leader.

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

Foxy said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

HYUFD said:

Badenoch says she admires Forbes' honesty

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/21/kemi-badenoch-admire-kate-forbes-honest/

Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?

Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.

Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.

Protection of the right to worship as you chose.

I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.

No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.

Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.

It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.

There is also the question of local politics. Do we ban people with religious views from holding power there? There are plenty of areas where allowing religious beliefs to influence politics has a very real effect e.g. education, social services etc.

@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.

Who wants to go first at saying that?

You seem to have missed my point. Despite disagreeing with her views, I am quite OK about Kate Fobes as a national politician.

I have no problem with similar views expressed by African Christians or Asian Muslims either.

All these views are fine as long as people respect the law and do not try to legislate their morality onto other people.

It isn't possible to keep belief, politics, morality, legislation, secularity, religion, worldview all is separate boxes.

Religion is merely a subsample of 'beliefs' generally. Certainty is so elusive that most of what we think are beliefs…
..Gay marriage is similar. Some people (a minority at the moment which Forbes and I are both in though we probably differ about most things) think that marriage is better defined such that it is only between one man and one woman, and that is objectively better for society. Genuine beliefs differ. Gosh. Fancy that.

If certainty is so elusive, how do you believe such a thing (which seems pretty daft to me, FWIW) objectively ?

Simples. It is a belief of mine that the physical world exists beyond my own mind and experience. It still exists even if I don't. Notoriously this is not provable to everyone's satisfaction (see Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant's first critique etc) though it is the Common Sense view of the world (eg the much ignored Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid and the man in the street).

Like almost everyone else except a small group of solipsists I have beliefs about what is the case in the world even if I were not in it. This is conventionally called 'beliefs about objectivity', or, as in Thomas Nagel's masterpiece 'The View from Nowhere'.

So, torturing children for fun would still be wrong even if I had never existed. I hope you believe the same. When I meet people who don't share this view I hide the children and lock up the spoons.

We’re not discussing that, though.
You’re talking about a belief in hypotheticals.

What real world evidence we have suggests that gay marriage is a net benefit to society.
You might believe we’re better without it, but there’s no objective evidence for that.