You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
One thing the SNP has been good at, is holding the party line. Is this down to Sturgeon and her husband? What will happen with any new leader, will the party split in fractions. The SNP was formed from those whose over riding objective was independence, but withouta strong leader is there a chance it will split into a series of smaller parties (e.g. Alba)
too much bigotry for me and it rains a lot.
The bigotry is more one sided, and has more to do with unionism than religious divide, but yes it does rain quite a bit.
Mind though, if it didn't rain so much, it wouldn't be called Dear Green Place.
@molgrips It's a bit more than a slogan. This from Keir Starmers speech on the fourth of July last year. You can read it all on Labour's website.
"We cannot afford to look back over our shoulder because all the time we are doing that we are missing what is ahead of us.
So let me be very clear.
Under Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU.
We will not be joining the single market or the customs union."
The bigotry is more one sided
Believe me, it's not. Both sides are as bad as each other and it's definitely drawn on sectarian lines. It's a national embarrassment.
Under Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU.
Yes, we've done this before, and it's unavoidable unfortunately. We are where we are, as they say.
But the point stands. I don't think you quite understand what's going on here.
Ah. If only we were all as clever as you.
No dispute there but 75% of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the UK. Using coastal ports won’t help mitigate the issues.
Trade would change. Predicting exactly how that will pan out by assuming that it is others that will be the net losers, not the UK (of whatever size), when these changes occur is a fools game. Look at Ireland, we’re importing more and more from them, yet they are importing less and less from us. Impositions of new borders creates change… but here’s the catch… the UK alone only controls its own borders… its neighbours are free to trade elsewhere… and the UK isn’t in a position to dictate the terms of that trade between other countries.
I think it's very clear what's going on Labour under Starmer will not be bringing us any closer to the EU than the Tories.
Or is it another one of his cunning statements which are to be believed in England and Wales but not believed by Scottish voters
I think whatever solution they come up with for NI could be adapted for Scotland. From what I remember, NI has something like 250 border crossing points compared to Scotland's 6.
And if they don't come up with a solution, the UK is well and truly sunk. Scotland will be better off switching entirely to trading with the EU if the UK is going to be a pariah state.
I’m still expecting Angus Robertson to put his name forward and he would likely have the support of Nicola Sturgeon and Peter Murrell.
Robertson has ruled himself out today.
From what I remember, NI has something like 250 border crossing points compared to Scotland’s 6.
Just counted 26 roads, for my own amusement and plenty of trails. Beautiful border, and loads of it is along rivers.
Kate Forbes has entered the contest, this leadership battle is making it even more head-scratching why Sturgeon has left, are the SNP about to copy the tories in causing more issues through self harming than the opposition?!
Just counted 26 roads, for my own amusement and plenty of trails. Beautiful border, and loads of it is along rivers.
You're confusing roads with crossing points AND more importantly, there's no Good Friday issue here.
Something else you don't understand?
Perhaps you can explain why a NI style agreement would make any sense in the absence of a Good Friday agreement? That's literally the only reason there isn't a hard border between ROI and NI!
You’re confusing roads with crossing points AND more importantly, there’s no Good Friday issue here.
Something else you don’t understand?
I checked after he posted, they are definite crossing points and not just roads meandering along the border. Some are running parallel to main crossings granted but he's still not wrong.
The EU argument is well down the road after independence, a lot more areas have to be understood and agreed before any effort goes into the EU discussions.
And if they don’t come up with a solution, the UK is well and truly sunk. Scotland will be better off switching entirely to trading with the EU if the UK is going to be a pariah state.
That's just thinking that this is about goods that can be sold to Party B rather than Party A, it's a lot more complex than that and the Scotland / rUK partnership across all areas will need to be thought out if an independent Scotland joined the EU.
Oh dear
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1627737647601930241?t=6g2XZegDBlwFaLYkO8drAA&s=19
Next!
^^ This is not exactly "news"
Can we perhaps clarify which faiths are acceptable and which aren't?
We might need to start by trying to define "faith".
If you think that this interview has not torpedoed her chances I have garden bridge to sell you
https://twitter.com/AlexofBrown/status/1627748904363036674?t=WExmF-fjQAwE-5aCXoxwjQ&s=19
You’re confusing roads with crossing points AND more importantly, there’s no Good Friday issue here.
Something else you don’t understand?
I even said it was for my own amusement. It's of no consequence. So maybe leave off the aggro?
I don’t object to her voicing her views, I don’t agree with them however and don’t think she should be first minister. Largely as I don’t think she’s shown us she’s particularly capable in her very short career so far
I do take issue with the fact she wasn’t prepared to vote on such an important issue that affected many folks in Scotland (even if I probably don’t agree with the way she would have voted) as she was on maternity leave, yet has binned that off to further her own ambitions
Tbh it’s a pretty damning indictment of the SNP when her and the other candidates, who have achieved the grand total of absolute sweet fa, are looking at the top job. That’s an accusation that can be leveled at pretty much every other political party as well tbf, however at least with Nicola I felt we had someone moderately competent in charge, regardless if I agreed with all her politics
Can we perhaps clarify which faiths are acceptable and which aren’t?
We might need to start by trying to define “faith”.
I don't have a problem with her faith. I do question where faith has a role in the state, more so in the position of First Minister. She is supposed to an elected representative of the people and if she can't represent the views of people she doesn't necessarily agree with then she's in the wrong job.
It's a set of views that would probably rule her out from becoming tory leader
Not sure how she thinks its going to go down in a moderately progressive party like the SNP
She is currently the bookies favourite I believe. Is this because her religious veiws weren't previously widely known?
She is currently the bookies favourite I believe. Is this because her religious veiws weren’t previously widely known?
I think the presumption was that she'd moderate her stance
Possibly also refkects a dearth of decent candidates
Does she need to moderate her stance on same sex marriage?
The issue has been settled and is unlikely to ever come up again.
Edit: I have absolutely no idea but is it possible that she might receive some respect for expressing an opinion which she doesn't need to express and she knows to be unpopular?
Might it not suggest a level of honesty, and therefore trustworthiness, uncommon among politicians these days?
Doesn't stop it being weaponised against her
And it pissed off a lot of MSPs who are in same sex partnerships
Oh for sure it will be used against her. I was only questioning whether is it absolutely certain that it has destroyed her leadership bid.
Especially as same sex marriage won't be an issue should she become leader.
is it possible that she might receive some respect for expressing an opinion which she doesn’t need to express and she knows to be unpopular?
Probably, but from all the wrong people.
Whether or not she intends it, that's very much from the JRM/Billious Barrage playbook.
SNP becomes the SUP with views like that..
Especially as same sex marriage won’t be an issue should she become leader.
She has already said that she wouldn't be looking to repeal.
To be fair I have just read what she actually said and in essence it's that she supports same sex marriage even if she doesn't agree with it:
Forbes was earlier asked by BBC Radio Scotland if she believed a man could marry another man.
She said: "I do, under the legal provisions in this country.
"I am a servant of democracy in this country, equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment"
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23335035.kate-forbes-voted-gay-marriage-scotland/
equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment
A fine position for someone in the police force, or the courts, to take.
And it pissed off a lot of MSPs who are in same sex partnerships
So they don't agree with her views on marriage but are unhappy that she disagrees with theirs? Sounds a bit like Christians are the only unacceptable minority.
Tolerance should go both ways. Sounds like she doesn't agree with same sex marriage but tolerates it. Perhaps the MSPs in same sex relationships could tolerate her beliefs?
Sounds a bit like Christians are the only unacceptable minority.
Christians are split on this issue. Plenty of people of other religions and none are with her on this.
It’s all a bit begrudging of equal rights… which should ring alarm bells with SNP members, and probably will.
I notice there's been quite a lot of emphasis on Kate Forbes's fundamental Presbyterian religion.
I wonder if the same commentators would care to express the same disquiet about the Muslim religion of the candidate who is also running for the leadership.
equal rights
Like the right to religious beliefs? Are we saying that folk of faith can't hold positions of power?
You can believe anything you want… if you want to win the support of your party they will take your stated beliefs into account. As will voters. If you begrudge hard won equal rights for people in same sex relationships, then some people will judge your suitability to lead a party and a country partly on that.
I wonder if the same commentators would care to express the same disquiet about the Muslim religion of the candidate who is also running for the leadership.
I guess we were most recently here in UK politics with Tim Farron, who finally stepped down citing a conflict between his religious beliefs and leading a party whose collective viewpoint was at odds with them.
Humza Yousaf to date has vocally supported principles that would not sit well with someone of a more orthodox understanding of his particular faith. The flavour of the faith is pretty moot (it's all equally fairies at the bottom of the garden from my perspective) - what seems more important is how much that faith is going to put them in ideological conflict with an egalitarian party they are trying to lead.
So no, I don't see it as Christian bashing in a way that would not be done to someone of another religion - more the identification of someone who looks more likely to do a Farron. He had the good grace to appreciate the predicament he was putting himself and party in by remaining leader. I guess the fear would be that Forbes might not be that self aware. He was also a sizable distance from meaningful power - SNP leader comes with the FM gig so a real step up in levels of spotlight.
Perhaps the MSPs in same sex relationships could tolerate her beliefs?
The problem is her beliefs are intolerant. I do not see how you can lead a political party when your views put you in direct conflict with the majority of the party and when you believe you answer to your god above your party
She is not a mainsteam christian. She is a member of a fundamentalist sect
Have to say, in the grand scheme of things i'm not that bothered about her religion, it's more her sheltered life and fast streaming to where she is that's the worry, i'm a firm believer in if you're good enough, you're old enough, so no age or experience thing, but is she the best that the SNP have to offer, are the party going to ease the route to FM for her, rather than let it be an open field?
The problem here isn't that a political leader can't have Christian beliefs it's that this particular potential leader belongs to a hardline Calvinist evangelical church. I would have similar misgivings if Hamza Yousef was a hard line Salafist muslim.
The Free Church has only recently come round to the idea of allowing actual music during services and even then Calvin himself was surely turning in his grave. Having known quite a few Free Church folk I wouldn't want to live in a place they have any significant influence over.
I wonder if the same commentators would care to express the same disquiet about the Muslim religion of the candidate who is also running for the leadership.
Why are you singling out Humza Yousaf here? Has he ever expressed any views about his faith that might put him at odds with SNP commitments?
Or is it just because he is a Muslim and therefore must have backwards views?
Personally, I think you can have religious beliefs of any flavour and still have good morals. Even if, strictly speaking, your faith tells you that you should be bigotted.
re, Kate Forbes. I don't think the 'Hate the sin but love the sinner' excuse flies which is what I take her comments to be. 'I don't like what they do but it's not illegal so I shall tolerate it' is never a good look, imo.
So her beliefs didn't stop Nicola giving her a senior role or the party accepting her there but she is barred from the top job?
Not barred, just likely to lose support due to what she says.
So her beliefs didn’t stop Nicola giving her a senior role or the party accepting her there but she is barred from the top job?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. The role she got wasn't Equalities minister, something which would have caused an issue. Nobody says you have to be perfect to hold a senior role.
The top job encompasses every aspect so your personal beliefs and whether they affect the way you carry out the job do become an issue.
Also, she's not been barred. She is still a candidate.
Based on I think that ANYONE who professes any kind of religious belief is a religious nutter I usually ignore politicians stated religion and/or beliefs UNLESS it directly impacts the rest of us.
I've no problem with politicians voting with their conscience either, I'd much prefer these free votes to whipped votes any day. The recent gender bill was a good example, with MSP's of the main parties voting for what they believed in rather than to party lines.
The thing with representing your religion rather than your constituents is where do you draw the line?
Trans rights?
Same sex marriage?
Abortion rights?
Stem cell treatment?
Right to die?
Organ donation?
That's just the sensible list, if we delve into the wee frees a bit more I'm sure plenty would see an end to Sunday trading and scheduled public transport.
Personally I wouldn't be comfortable with a fundamentalist of any flavour in the top job. Yousef has had a lot of criticism flung at him but never once have I heard his religion mentioned. This isn't just her representing the folk in Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, it's the whole of Scotland and I think you would probably find the majority view clashes with hers on most of those issues listed.
Funny how so many people are quick to criticise the US evangelist politicians but as soon as its one of our own all objectivity goes out the window.
All sense goes out of the window because it is religion, which is by definition nonsense at varying levels of harmfulness.
The Big Beardy White Guy in the Sky is probably less harmful than all that stuff about lizards, flat earth and microchips in vaccines.
The problem is her beliefs are intolerant. I do not see how you can lead a political party when your views put you in direct conflict with the majority of the party and when you believe you answer to your god above your party
The particular issue is dead and buried though. And how often has it been a problem that a political leader has had religious veiws?
If you believe in a supreme divine being you will always believe that you are answerable to God first. Is it reasonable to assume that only atheists make good leaders of political parties?
It is certainly a view which is prevalent within the Communist Party of China but based on that criteria Nelson Mandela, a man who claimed that his faith sustained him during his darkest hours, was not a good political leader.
And yet for many across the world Mandela was the greatest political leader of recent times.
Having said all that I won't defend anyone's right to oppose same sex marriage because frankly it has bugger all to do with them who a person marries. Forbes is perfectly entitled to live her life how she chooses to live it but she has no right to tell other people how live theirs.
And how often has it been a problem that a political leader has had religious veiws?
Blair was very Christian, wasn't he? He just chose not to announce it.
100,000 dead Muslims later...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4772142.stm
Is it reasonable to assume that only atheists make good leaders of political parties?
I'm sure religious people who can leave their beliefs at home can make fine leaders too.
I think that ANYONE who professes any kind of religious belief is a religious nutter
Well over 90% of human beings profess some kind of religious belief. What does it feel like to live in a world where you consider the overwhelming majority of your own species to be nutters?
Quite depressing I would imagine, and possibly quite angry?
Well over 90% of human beings profess some kind of religious belief
Yeah, but only 41% of Scots. So you're only slightly more likely to meet a religious person than you are a Brexit voter.
All the nutters are foreigners?
Edit: Sorry that is disingenuous, obviously not all the nutters are foreign, 41% of Scots are also nutters, apparently.
All the nutters are foreigners?
Not all of them. You seem to be forgetting that many countries in the world actively persecute non-believers. In that case, I would imagine many of your 90% aren't actually very true believers.
But yes, there are foreign nutters and there are domestic nutters.
The domestic nutters are arguably worse than the foreign nutters because there is little to no societal pressure for them to be a nutter. They 100% choose to be.
The particular issue is dead and buried though.
It is but when policy is being formulated and tough decisions made where do you think the axe would fall first if she had her way?
Contraceptive/reproductive health services? Any of the other stuff I already mentioned?
Anyway, it's not like many of us actually have a say, my missus is a member and was commenting last night that the voting records of both Forbes and Regan don't make for good viewing. As others have said, it's an extremely shallow talent pool - we could be looking at another round of Swinney era forgotten years.
41% of Scots are also nutters
Oh no, the vast, vast majority of us are, it's just that 41% of us that are that particular flavour of fruitloop 😉
And don't forget the matter is complicated in Scotland by all the Norn Ireland flavored even more nonsense, nonsense. People may stake a claim to a particular religion but it is more a cultural tribal thing than a belief in a divine being. Like my dad, who was a confirmed atheist but importantly a Protestant Atheist, not one of those Catholic ones.
So in summary what you are seeing as a minus to KF's chances may just be a dog whistle "hey I am not a Catholic" to catch votes in the areas with grey painted Specsavers shop windows. Or maybe not, but it makes you think, doesn't it.
@hels I'd say the amount of Protestants (with a big P) voting SNP is going to be negligible. I work with loads of them and none of them would vote for SNP for what should be very obvious reasons (only catholics and scroungers vote for SNP - their words not mine).
I guess it depends how much you connect SNP with leaving the Union any more?
Forbes is perfectly entitled to live her life how she chooses to live it but she has no right to tell other people how live theirs.
Isn't that almost exactly what the leader of a country actually DOES have the right to do? (by making laws, etc)
I guess it depends how much you connect SNP with leaving the Union any more?
You give them too much credit for making nuanced decisions.
Isn’t that almost exactly what the leader of a country actually DOES have the right to do? (by making laws, etc)
That depends on which country you refer to, in the case of a representative democracy, no, they don't.
Forbes is perfectly entitled to live her life how she chooses to live it but she has no right to tell other people how live theirs.
But she isn't telling them how to live their lives. She said
""On equal marriage, it is a legal right - and as a servant of democracy I absolutely respect and defend that democratic right"."
It is possible to disagree with something while recognising that other people have different views. Other examples being abortion and the death penalty where parlimentary votes are normally conscience votes and not party whipped.
But anyway it's all good. As I don't want indy the sight of the SNP candidates fighting like ferrets in a sack doesn't lose me any sleep.
If you believe in a supreme divine being you will always believe that you are answerable to God first.
It is worth noting that a belief in a deity does not automatically translate to following a religion. I think its perfectly feasible to believe that there is some sort of supreme divinity that you are ultimately answerable to (which may be a good thing in terms of a moral compass) without believing that one particular version or one particular book and its subsequent interpretation by your particular club has accurately defined instructions from that deity.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Is it reasonable to assume that only atheists make good leaders of political parties?</span>
Good leaders of political parties or good politicians?
It struck me at the weekend that as all of this blew up that there seemed to be a lot more actively religious people in the top echelons of politics than in society in general. That probably explains why we still have religion entrenched in our schooling, hesitation over assisted dying, etc. Why is it? Is it because religious people are inclined towards serving their communities or because they are quite used to telling others how to live their lives? Or is there some sort of correlation with the privilege which might lead to people following a career in politics? What really surprises me is that sectarianism is probably the biggest real issue in Scotland and no politician of any colour ever seems to want to tackle it.
As a general rule if you offer me politicians to vote for and the spectrum is "atheist" <--> "devout believer/follower", I'm going to be very cynical about the devout followers because they seem to lack the critical thinking necessary to challenge ideals necessary for a rational debate based on evidence; ideology is rarely good for politics but that may be different from being a "party leader" which is a bit more like a cult so unthinking challenge is good. However, its not a one-dimensional question, because there is a second axis which runs from "positively accepts different views" <--> "aggressively dismisses alternative views". The problem with the question being posed about Forbes suitability is it asks the question on the first axis but interprets the answer on the other one. She's given some clever, carefully worded answers. Unfortunately for her the answers land in the ears of people who aren't as smart as her so they may impose meaning on it she may not have intended; once she starts getting into "that's not what I meant" I think its game over. Its also possible her "smart answers" were simply to avoid answering the simple question because the answer would be unpopular and that is never a good look. I think she could recover from it with a really well-thought-out speech on what she really means but only of course if she's able to articulate the right message.
Well over 90% of human beings profess some kind of religious belief. What does it feel like to live in a world where to consider the overwhelming majority of your own species to be nutters?
But more people in Scotland have no religion than identity with any particular religion* and is growing rapidly (2022 Census Results). Perhaps Scotland is a growing area of sanity? (* you could argue that all the flavours of Christianity should be lumped together in the census - but only someone who's never lived in Glasgow would be brave enough to do that!)
FWIW its incredibly frustrating to live in a world surrounded by idiots, but I reach the conclusion that most people are idiots without even knowing their religious views.
The Big Beardy White Guy in the Sky is probably less harmful than all that stuff about lizards, flat earth and microchips in vaccines.
I'm not convinced about that... religion is a cause or significant factor in most wars. The flat earth / lizard / microchip stuff just highlights the double standards we have - established unevidenced beliefs passed down generations = must be protected and never ridiculed. New fangled hoccum = should expect social media to censor it!
But anyway it’s all good. As I don’t want indy the sight of the SNP candidates fighting like ferrets in a sack doesn’t lose me any sleep.
mmm... not sure thats a great logic. The only thing the party will unite around is the best candidate for Indy!
I’d say the amount of Protestants (with a big P) voting SNP is going to be negligible. I work with loads of them and none of them would vote for SNP for what should be very obvious reasons (only catholics and scroungers vote for SNP – their words not mine).
I think the number who admit to being SNP voters (like those who admit to being tory voters) is possibly different. I think your political and religious intermingling only strongly applies in West Central Scotland. FWIW despite having grown up there I've never actually heard any credible "very obvious reasons" other than "ma Da says not tae" and "Celtic fans seem tae like it, so they must be bad" and "William of Orange did something or other" so are there actually any real reasons?
@Poly Thi was unuccesful but I think a genuine attempt to deal with sectarianism in one particular context. From wiki
"The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 was an Act of the Scottish Parliament which created new criminal offences concerning sectarian behaviour at football games. The Act was repealed on 20 April 2018."
FWIW despite having grown up there I’ve never actually heard any credible “very obvious reasons” other than “ma Da says not tae” and “Celtic fans seem tae like it, so they must be bad” and “William of Orange did something or other” so are there actually any real reasons?
Oh I didn't say they were credible or rational, what part of sectarianism is*? And good guess, Ayrshire FWIW.
*still remember the story of one guy who kicked off at his kids school because they got put in the green reading group.
But anyway it’s all good. As I don’t want indy the sight of the SNP candidates fighting like ferrets in a sack doesn’t lose me any sleep.
But you're happy with how the Tories are running the UK - seriously?
Forbes is perfectly entitled to live her life how she chooses to live it but she has no right to tell other people how live theirs.
Isn’t that almost exactly what the leader of a country actually DOES have the right to do? (by making laws, etc)
I thought it was pretty obvious what I referring to and that I didn't have to specify exactly what I meant, apparently not.
No one of course has the right to drive the wrong way down a one-way street, or murder someone who has upset them, or con people out of their money. There are legitimate restrictions on how you live your life.
However your personal life, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, is your business and not anyone else's. Every one has the right to choose who they love, marry, the way they dress, the religion they follow, and what other personal choices choices they make.
What particularly annoys me about homophobia is that people's personal life has **** all to do with anyone else.
If someone wants to live a life of sin and debauchery then that's their business and no one else's. And it is certainly something which everyone who claims to be a Christian should understand - it is a basic Christian teaching that everyone has a choice as to whether they are righteous or sinful.
HTH
But you’re happy with how the Tories are running the UK – seriously?
Have you got another argument ready which can be used in about 18 months time when the current one expires?
Have you got another argument ready which can be used in about 18 months time when the current one expires?
But you’re happy with how the diet-Tories are running the UK – seriously?
What's "the sin" you're talking about Ernie?
The Big Beardy White Guy in the Sky is probably less harmful than all that stuff about lizards, flat earth and microchips in vaccines.
History hasn't really borne that one out
What’s “the sin” you’re talking about Ernie?
really? Is this pick on Ernie day?
It’s a song, by the pet shop boys
Well over 90% of human beings profess some kind of religious belief.
Yup, but all are of different religions who are or were in violent conflict with each other at one time or another.
So I dont think that qualifies as any sort of positive point of view.
The question was:
What does it feel like to live in a world where you consider the overwhelming majority of your own species to be nutters?
Miserable would be my guess but I am intrigued.
Miserable would be my guess but I am intrigued.
I already explained why your idiotic attempt at a gotcha was idiotic. Did you not see or did you finally get fed up and put me on your killfile list?
It almost feels like a bit of an existential crisis for the SNP. they need to decide what next. With polls in favour of independence around the 45 - 50% mark then its not really plausible to declare UDI or any other extra legal course. there seems to be no legal course. What next?
The faction within the party and the wider movement that want independence now are not going to be easily kept on side but its hard to see what the next step is. The election as a "defacto referendum" is pretty weak. "win" that - then what? There is not the overwhelming public support that a civil disobedience campaign requires IMO - if the polls were 60+% then thats a different matter