You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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
There is no route forward that is going to have popular support. The options are:
1. Ask for Section 30 order, get refused, whinge until next election.
2. De facto referendum (or illegal referendum), declare independence, refuse to cooperate with Westminster, basically try to provoke Westminster into an over-reaction (shouldn't be hard), make as much disruption until Section 30 order is granted by which point support should be at least 55%. If that referendum ends up being lost the issue really is put to bed.
The SNP are going to elect an option 1 candidate. Going for option 2 would require some unpopular choices and there is no one within the SNP who has the wherewithal to keep making the difficult choices that are going to be necessary for what is essentially a criminal act.
So Scotland has the next 20 years at least of being Schrodinger's Country to look forward to.
The independence campaign needs either a strong, united and relatable SNP that you don't have to hold your nose to vote for. Or, it needs other major parties to have more open approach to independence and harbour both unionists and independents equally within their ranks and leaders. The latter is not where we are at and I fear the former might be what's coming.
if the polls were 60+% then thats a different matter
Not really, declaring UDI because the polls are showing 60+% in favour of independence would still be implausible.
Firstly opinion polls are not the same as referendums. Secondly there is the fact that independence needs to be an agreement between two sides - if it was unilaterally declared and unconstitutional those responsible would be quickly arrested.
And finally I cannot think of a single country which would recognise Scottish UDI - certainly those most important to legitimise Scottish independence, such as the United States and the European Union, wouldn't.
https://news.sky.com/story/catalan-leader-jailed-for-13-years-over-independence-referendum-11835480
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.
Ah - you see it depends if you think every Protestant is sectarian or not? Being a product of a so-called non-denominational school in Glasgow I can tell you that there is quite a spectrum of Protestantism (and Catholicism).
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.”
Nah, that might have been a genuine attempt but it treated the problem as a Football issue, whereas it is not. Football is a symptom. It is the socially acceptable way of pretending that its just friendly rivalry. Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe it really has that much to do with a genuine religious difference, its tribalism. Social media has reinforced that tribalism and what I see today is actually worse than it was in the 80's/90's. We reinforce those labels by making parents decide at age 4 which tribe their children will be in.
There's always Partick Thistle.....
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?
I actually think the risk is the other way round. The issue for Westminster is if there was a win of a defacto referendum would you still block any further progress? Given blocking only adds to support, and time only dilutes the "once in a generation" argument it seems whilst not necessarily decisive it does make baby steps forward. The interesting problem as an opposition party in a defacto referendum is you can try to ignore it but then your arguments against Indy are never heard and you are making noise about the wrong issues, or you engage with it, legitimise it and effectively would have been better having a real referendum in the first place where it is the sole issue. If the SNP were to win and find themselves as "King Makers" they might be able to negotiate a full referendum - it would be easier for Starmer to say "well the people spoke I need to listen" than I agreed this beforehand. Alternatively, it might force him to have a proper constitutional convention; not necessarily full Indy but opening the debate on what 21st century Union should look like.
BUT if you lose a defacto referendum, and there is no certainty you won't, then you've just diluted any argument for a real referendum, and bear in mind that 49% (which is still growth compared to the last GE) would still be a loss - you've won your biggest ever vote but made it harder to get the one thing those people voted for!
There is not the overwhelming public support that a civil disobedience campaign requires IMO – if the polls were 60+% then thats a different matter
Civil disobedience is not the answer. But getting to 60% would be a massive momentum builder. There's plenty of people who are reasonably open to Indy but who don't like the idea of a 51/49 vote for Indy dragging their friends and neighbours out the union against their will. At 60% the discussion would no longer be should we, but when and what does it look like.
*still remember the story of one guy who kicked off at his kids school because they got put in the green reading group.
When I was at college, the annex which was in Bridgeton Cross in Glasgow, which is a very rangers and protestant orientated area in Glasgow, one of the houses had painted his garden blue, as in painted the grass blue, the plants were blue, the soil replaced with chips, in blue. You could see in his livingroom window, and the walls were blue, the ceiling and furniture all in blue.
Some folk have it bad.
There are many towns and villages where the green traffic lights are permanently smashed (much like some of the residents).
Poly I think you are forgetting many people will vote SNP rather than Labour or Tory, that doesn't mean they support independance. So a win in an election doesn't equate to a referendum win or at least not a decisive win. Hopefully if we've learnt anything from Brexit is that a 50.1% majority doesn't cut it for such monumental and difficult to reverse changes. Should be at least 60:40 In favour.
My point about polls is not that I think legally there needs to be a supermajority - just that if the polls were showing 60 -70% support for independence then more options would be open to the independence movement.
Ah – you see it depends if you think every Protestant is sectarian or not? Being a product of a so-called non-denominational school in Glasgow I can tell you that there is quite a spectrum of Protestantism (and Catholicism).
Well, yes. But anyone who identifies as Protestant (with a big P) just so that nobody thinks they are a catholic probably is to some degree.
It seems to be Scottish peculiarity that people identify by their sect or denomination rather than a plain old 'christian'.
When I was at college, the annex which was in Bridgeton Cross in Glasgow, which is a very rangers and protestant orientated area in Glasgow, one of the houses had painted his garden blue, as in painted the grass blue, the plants were blue, the soil replaced with chips, in blue. You could see in his livingroom window, and the walls were blue, the ceiling and furniture all in blue.
Probably the inspiration for Mason Boyne.
It seems to be Scottish peculiarity that people identify by their sect or denomination rather than a plain old ‘christian’.
Nah. Just look south of the border to see a range of Christian churches and bear in mind that Catholics cannot become monarch.
Nah, that might have been a genuine attempt but it treated the problem as a Football issue, whereas it is not
@Poly Yes you're right. For me we have to to be serious about why sectarianism persists.
I think the number one reason is that there's money to be made from it. The holy Willie's in the media are forever fanning the flames of the next old firm match and then giving sermons when some poor sod loses their life.
Humza Yousaf is not being put under the same pressure by the media as Kate Forbes regarding religion. I wonder why?
What the Scottish Asian community thinks of Humza Yousaf:
THE INDIAN COUNCIL OF SCOTLAND.
"The Indian community in Scotland would live in fear if Humza Yousaf becomes First Minister."
"Neil Lal, Chairman and President of The Indian Council, stated:
“We as a community do not feel safe with Humza Yousaf as the First Minister in Scotland. The Indian community – which is a community of all faiths that includes Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, and Judaism – would not feel safe with Humza Yousaf as First Minister.
Our community is law-abiding, hard-working, and proud of our country. Humza Yousaf attacked a nursery publicly and has now walked away without apology. Surely his integrity must be called into question? He has stoked up racial tensions in the Indian Hindu community, and this is not acceptable.”
The Indian community of all faiths live in fear, dreading Mr Yousaf becoming First Minister. Many of the Indian community are now thinking of moving out of Scotland should it happen.
Humza Yousaf has been incompetent in every role that he served in from Justice to Transport and now Health. If he was the First Minister it would be an economic disaster for Scotland, as he also has been economical with the truth in the past. How can we have such a person as First Minister?"
Then there's this:
THE MUSLIM COUNCIL OF UK.
If it is good enough for Kate Forbes and Ash Regan, for Ash will be asked when she launches her campaign, then it is certainly right that Mr Yousaf answers the same question.
"Mr Wasif Ahmad, Chairman of The Muslim Council of the UK, stated:
“Humza Yousaf is not the right person for the role. We trust Ash Regan or Kate Forbes as First Minister and urge people to vote for one of them, who would heal the damage and be better for Scotland. Humza Yousaf is not competent. We stand with the Indian community and agree with their concerns.”
We call for Humza Yousaf to be asked the same questions as Kate Forbes:
1. Are trans women women?
2. Are children outside marriage allowed?
3. Is sex before marriage allowed?
Anything less is giving Humza Yousaf more favourable treatment in the SNP leadership contest and treating the women candidates of different beliefs at a disadvantage.”
I wonder why?
Because he has come out and said he can leave his religious views at home. Kate Forbes has said the opposite.
Of course, his absence for the vote in 2014 raises questions about this (which, by the way, are being asked).
Plenty of Christians who are able to leave their faith at home are able to get on with their lives without being questioned about it. What is it about Humza Yousef that makes you feel the need to question his faith?
BruceWee
...What is it about Humza Yousef that makes you feel the need to question his faith?
I'm not questioning his faith, I'm wondering why his appears to be irrelevant when so much attention is being paid to Kate Forbes's faith.
He was asked about the policy, and gave a straight answer. He's not being ignored.
He talks about his religion in that LBC clip, and has been asked about it in many interviews this week.
Humza Yousaf is not being put under the same pressure by the media as Kate Forbes regarding religion. I wonder why?
What the Scottish Asian community thinks of Humza Yousaf:
He answered those questions on the today programme this morning.
I’m not questioning his faith, I’m wondering why his appears to be irrelevant when so much attention is being paid to Kate Forbes’s faith.
He's come out and said it would not affect decisions made in the job. Kate Forbes said the opposite.
For most Christian politicians, provided they don't explicitly mention their faith, they are not asked about it. Kate Forbes has talked about her faith throughout her political career and it's entirely correct that she be asked about it.
Because Humza Yousef is Muslim and not Christian, he has been asked about his Faith despite not actively bringing it up during his political career (as far as I know). It's a double standard but as far as the double standards minorities typically face it's not the worst example.
What you are asking for is that, because Kate Forbes has made her faith front and centre, Humza Yousef should be forced to put his faith front and centre. Something you wouldn't be asking for if he was a secular Christian but because he is a secular Muslim you feel he is fair game.
Why do you feel his faith is fair game despite being a secular Muslim?
Why are you not asking about Ash Regan's faith? Has she come out and said she is an athiest?
Poly I think you are forgetting many people will vote SNP rather than Labour or Tory, that doesn’t mean they support independance.
Certainly some do. Of course some also vote Labour, Lib Dem or Tory but would vote Yes for Indy.
So a win in an election doesn’t equate to a referendum win or at least not a decisive win. Hopefully if we’ve learnt anything from Brexit is that a 50.1% majority doesn’t cut it for such monumental and difficult to reverse changes. Should be at least 60:40 In favour.
A large part of me agrees (you'll find posts on this site where I've said it should be 50% of eligible voters rather than 50% of turnout). But here lies a problem. Would you want to live in a country where 59.9% of people said they want something to happen and it couldn't because a minority blocked it? What sort of democracy is that? 50/50 is the only "fair" way to decide - but politically I wouldn't want to be trying to lead a country that gained indy by 52%. Every wrong turn will be blamed on the decision, there will be no unity etc. Frankly its stupid to want a Referendum unless you are pretty certain of the outcome.
There are many towns and villages where the green traffic lights are permanently smashed (much like some of the residents).
No there are a small number of places where that happens. Lets not get carried away saying its many.
@Poly Yes you’re right. For me we have to to be serious about why sectarianism persists.
I think the number one reason is that there’s money to be made from it.
Interesting - I hadn't considered that someone was profiting from it. Certainly "we are a harmonious nation" doesn't sell papers - but news paper sales are falling so sectarianism should wane and I've not really observed that. I think its a far more complex issue - the churches, the football clubs, the political parties, individual schools, the lodges, royalty and feudalism, and then the old-boy-networks built from them all contribute to reinforcing the issues.
Nah. Just look south of the border to see a range of Christian churches and bear in mind that Catholics cannot become monarch.
To be fair, the monarch is the governor of the Church of England, so pretty hard for a Catholic to get that role 😁
As for the battle for the next FM, it's already started division, then whoever wins, we'll have the aftermath of it, these are the things that having Sturgeon for so long, people forgot, even when Salmond left, there was only one choice and no real division on that.
I think the Yes movement really has to divorce itself from the SNP.
Holding together a governing party and being the core of a single issue movement is unworkable, especially for 15+ years.
He’s come out and said it would not affect decisions made in the job. Kate Forbes said the opposite.
Has she. I've actually watched a number of the interviews and I don't think she has said that. I'll grant you she's not doing a great job of appearing like a first minister in those interviews (hard act to follow though!) but if you actually listen to what SHE says, not what the interviewer says she said or the headlines or selective quotes say. Then I think she is not quite as radical as being presented but is doing the thing we all ask of our politicians - being open and honest.
For most Christian politicians, provided they don’t explicitly mention their faith, they are not asked about it. Kate Forbes has talked about her faith throughout her political career and it’s entirely correct that she be asked about it.
Has she? I'm not saying she's been silent on the matter but has she actually ever mentioned it in parliament? in a political context?
Because Humza Yousef is Muslim and not Christian, he has been asked about his Faith despite not actively bringing it up during his political career (as far as I know). It’s a double standard but as far as the double standards minorities typically face it’s not the worst example.
I don't think he makes it his number one issue - but I certainly new he was a Muslim and believe I've heard him refer to it in the past.
What you are asking for is that, because Kate Forbes has made her faith front and centre, Humza Yousef should be forced to put his faith front and centre. Something you wouldn’t be asking for if he was a secular Christian but because he is a secular Muslim you feel he is fair game.
I think you are assuming that Kate put her faith front and centre. I think the media (possibly encouraged by people who don't want Kate) put her faith in the spotlight. Perhaps she could have dealt with it better. Perhaps she shouldn't have to. I'm conflicted. Why should she not be able to be an active member of a church in a free society, but I don't want the church to dictate our laws. I think what she thought she was saying in the "no children outside wedlock answer" was "in my faith this is how we conduct our lives, we don't expect people who are not from our faith fo follow the same ideals".
Why do you feel his faith is fair game despite being a secular Muslim?
They are straight forward questions to answer if you are willing to be open and honest. He doesn't need to put it front and centre, he's dismissed it as a non-issue as he has separation between his faith and his politics. Its entirely reasonably though, that journalists are able to question or challenge that to see if the evidence and depth really stacks up, or its just easy rhetoric. Would you rather have a person of strongly committed faith who openly explains their faith and is aware of how it may influence them, or someone who says they separate the two but in reality conflates the two (if he does)? That's surely a legitimate question.
Has she.
Yes. Google it if you don't believe me.
That’s surely a legitimate question.
And yet it's not a question anyone is putting to Ash Regan. Can you think of a reason that you know Humza Yousef's faith but you don't know what Ash Regan's is?
How many MSP's faiths do you know?
How many MP's?
Why do I know Rishi Sunak is Hindu but I don't know what sect of Christianity Boris Johnson is a member of, despite seeing photos of him going in and out of churches?
Could it be that it's just another example of secular brown people being asked about their faith because they aren't white?
Let's for a minute pretend Kate Forbes is an athiest:
Interviewer: What do you think about gay marriage and having children outside of wedlock.
Kate: They are legal and I won't change anything but I am against both.
Interviewer: Eh? Wait, what? Why are you against them?
Kate: It's my opinion which I am entitled to.
Interviewer: Well, yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But you've just said something pretty controversial. Even if you were a Tory it would be controversial. Why do you think that?
Kate: I'm following my conscience.
Interviewer: Ok.. but what led your conscience to come to that conclusion
Kate: It's just what I think.
Interviewer: But WHY do you think that?!!
It's hilarious that people think Kate Forbes' faith makes her a target. It's her OPINIONS that make her a target.
If she weren't a religious she would be expected to justify her views, giving good reasons as to why she believed these things that don't involve the words in a user manual that was written thousands of years ago.
But because she's religious, she doesn't have to justify her opinions, and somehow that's seen as fair.
Scotland is a secular country. If you want to be leader, you are going to be able to defend your opinions using reasoning, not an appeal to an invisible Grandad.
She is not being persecuted for her faith. She is being protected from having to justify her opinions through her faith.
It seems to be Scottish peculiarity that people identify by their sect or denomination rather than a plain old ‘christian’.
Can I refer you to the island to the west?
Interesting – I hadn’t considered that someone was profiting from it. Certainly “we are a harmonious nation” doesn’t sell papers – but news paper sales are falling so sectarianism should wane and I’ve not really observed that. I think its a far more complex issue – the churches, the football clubs, the political parties, individual schools, the lodges, royalty and feudalism, and then the old-boy-networks built from them all contribute to reinforcing the issues.
It's also the classic divide and conquer strategy played out again and again. The media is just changing shape not going away entirely it might now be any one of the many social media firms rather than print or tv .
I may have over egged the pudding with my comment about some poor sod losing his life. My apologies, it was the end of a long day. Anyway there is plenty of controversy on the main subject of this thread.
Only soundbite i've seen from Kate Forbes about her religion is through her stating how she'd vote for certain things, but that she would value the law of the land over her principles if FM, i.e. she'd vote against certain things but would honour the outcome of the vote either way and work towards implementing them.
I'm wondering if anyone else will throw their hat in the ring, the 3 already in aren't exactly including any real stand outs, so looks an open field still.
To be fair, the monarch is the governor of the Church of England, so pretty hard for a Catholic to get that role
But the Act of Settlement specifically excludes Roman Catholics, not any other faith.
So legally any other Protestant, even if they weren't Anglican, could become Monarch. So also could, legally, a Muslim, Jew, or a Hindu.
Why do I know Rishi Sunak is Hindu but I don’t know what sect of Christianity Boris Johnson is a member of, despite seeing photos of him going in and out of churches?
To be fair, I know Alexander Boris dePfeffel Johnson is a catholic, because he conveniently had his previous two non-catholic marriages waived as mulligans when he married Carrie.
To be fair, I know Alexander Boris dePfeffel Johnson is a catholic, because he conveniently had his previous two non-catholic marriages waived as mulligans when he married Carrie.
Just looked into it and Johnson has some interesting history in terms of his religious 'beliefs'. Much more interesting that Sunak's rather boring secular Hinduism.
Funny how the brown person's 'normal' religious beliefs get much more coverage than Johnson's 'unusual' Christian beliefs.
But the Act of Settlement specifically excludes Roman Catholics, not any other faith.
Yep, the Act of Settlement is from a bygone time, it's little more than a relic kept for historical reasons, but if the heir to the throne, or future monarch were catholic, it would be binned in no time at all.
It's weird talking about it in regards to previous comments, as that act was all around the history of a time that a lot of people in Scotland still believe is today 😂
Sunak is not a secular Hindu, he regularly attends Hindu religious events.
Craig Murray makes a good case that Humsa Yousaf arranged a meeting so he would not have to vote for or against gay marriage.
The Equal Marriage vote took place on 4 February 2014. On 14 January 2014, three weeks in advance, the Minister for Parliamentary Business had entered it into Humza Yousaf’s ministerial diary (as all other ministers).
Just two days later, on 16 January 2014, Humza arranged his “urgent” meeting with the ****stani Consul General for 19 days later, to miss the gay marriage vote.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
Sunak is not a secular Hindu, he regularly attends Hindu religious events.
Possibly we have different meanings of secular.
I take secular to mean you can actually have a debate about issues without referring to your holy book for justification of your views but instead you arrive at your views through a secular process.
You can still go to church/temple/mosque/synagogue but also have a debate with a non-religious person.
Yep, the Act of Settlement is from a bygone time, it’s little more than a relic kept for historical reasons, but if the heir to the throne, or future monarch were catholic, it would be binned in no time at all.
So why do you think that the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 had to be passed to allow the heir to the crown to be allowed to marry a Catholic?
If the heir to the crown could be a Catholic why do you think it was illegal until 2013 for them to marry a Catholic?
It is still a legal requirement that the UK monarch is not a Catholic.
Craig Murray makes a good case that Humsa Yousaf arranged a meeting so he would not have to vote for or against gay marriage.
It's possible and honestly it wouldn't surprise me if he did. However, he has been a vocal supporter of LGBTQ+ rights and nothing he has said indicates that he feels any differently.
Shit-stirring from Craig Murray (and grasping at straws). I used to respect him when he was getting himself fired for telling Tony Blair he shouldn't be cosying up to people who boil their political opponents alive.
Since then he seems to have taken to trying to out rape victims and being a Putin-apologists so forgive me if I don't give his site any more traffic.
Craig Murray makes a good case
I wouldn't trust Craig Murray on anything these days. He's become little more than a peddler of conspiracy theories for attention.
I happen to consider Humza Yousef to be a poor candidate that the SNP should avoid elevating... but he's been very clear on his support for same sex marriage, there's no need to desperately dig for theories to suggest he doesn't support it.
So why do you think that the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 had to be passed to allow the heir to the crown to be allowed to marry a Catholic?
To be fair to the poster, that's what "binned" looks like... the law being changed to suit the royal family when it needs to be.
It is still a legal requirement that the UK monarch is not a Catholic.
If Charles declared he wanted to become a Catholic I am pretty certain it would get signed off.
However it isnt just a UK issue but would need all the commonwealth realms (subset of the commonwealth which has Charles as head of state) to sign it off.
As such given the main criteria for the job is extremely restrictive anyway its not likely to be worth the hassle. Especially given some of those realms might go for the "well if we are updating the paperwork might as well bin it off entirely".
It really is a relic from a time in European history which had significant disruption and often loss of life whenever you got a new monarch and got free new "religion" as well.
Nah. Just look south of the border to see a range of Christian churches and bear in mind that Catholics cannot become monarch
Rubbish.
I’ve lived near Glasgow and I now live in Surrey. Nobody in England has ever asked me what school I went to, or any other proxy for “Catholic or Proddy?” The plant I managed was about 2 miles from Parkhead so I was well aware of the different factions on our site.
If you think that different church denominations in England is remotely like the religious sectarianism in Scotland you obviously have no idea.
It really is a relic from a time in European history which had significant disruption and often loss of life whenever you got a new monarch and got free new “religion” as well.
The entire institution of the monarchy is a relic from the past, as is the House of Lords - think about it "lords", ffs.
And yet it still lingers on and it still has legal status.
And the church of england ( but no other church) automatically is represented in the lords!
I see the mirror group pro tory tabloids are focusing all their stories on Mrs Forbes and her Christian beliefs.
@J-R I was merely refuting the idea that Scotland is the only country with more than one flavour of Christianity. Look back for the post I was responding to.
I was merely refuting the idea that Scotland is the only country with more than one flavour of Christianity. Look back for the post I was responding to.
I didn't say it was, read it again:
It seems to be Scottish peculiarity that people identify by their sect or denomination rather than a plain old ‘christian’.
And yes @poly I'm aware of NI given it's the entire source of our troubles (dating back to the Ulster plantation).
I see the mirror group pro tory tabloids are focusing all their stories on Mrs Forbes and her Christian beliefs.
A lot of people on the phone-in on Radio Scotland yesterday morning were very keen on Kate Forbes. Unfortunately, it turns out they were Tory voters and when asked, 'Would she be enough to make you a Yes voter?' they inevitably replied, 'No!' 🙂
In other news, Alba and Wings over Scotland involved in shady dealings (I think someone reproduced the results of these shady dealings on the previous page):
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23340556.alba-denies-inspiring-attack-yousaf-links-emerge/
I, for one, am shocked **sarcasm emoji**
Involved in doing a lot of heavy linking there.
Wings and alba are desperate to appear relevant and that is pretty damning about them
Currently scurrying around looking for a link between WoS, Alba and Audit Scotland..
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/key-nhs-recruitment-targets-unlikely-to-be-met-warn-audit-scotland
Currently scurrying around looking for a link between WoS, Alba and Audit Scotland..
Yeah, it seems a bit weird that they went running around trying to manufacture shite when they could have just pointed to his record as Health minister.
It's almost like they are not only incompetent but nasty ****s as well.
For those who wouldn't trust Craig Murray his blog about Humsa dodging the gay marriage vote now being run by various papers.
And that proves what?
If Alex Neill was so bothered about it,why did he wait nine years?
It seems a very convoluted way to avoid making a decision which whatever the outcome would have upset people. The obvious solution was to simply abstain.
So I wonder who he presumably thought he would upset by abstaining - same sex marriage supporters or the Muslim establishment?
IMO both would be wrong in objecting to him abstaining. The same sex marriage supporters for not accepting that him voting wasn't necessary - the numbers were always going to be in their favour so no need to needlessly put his back against the wall.
And the Muslim establishment for expecting him to vote against something which is none of their business - I have absolutely no problem with Muslims being opposed to same sex marriage but I do have a big problem with them telling non-Muslims how to live their lives. If that is indeed a problem - in my experience of Muslims (which includes Muslim friends and talking to imans in local mosques) Muslims have absolutely no problem whatsoever with how non-Muslims live their lives. They show the same respect that they expect to be shown to them, IME.
Its kind of blown up bunch of nonsense. Since when did the establishment care about who took over as leader of a Scottish political party.
Clearly they think by demonizing every candidate, the voter will suddenly think the Tories are the party to lead Scotland.
They are living in cloud cuckoo land. No Scot is ever going to give the Tories a majority here.
A quick look at the media, and the right side of politics seem to be backing Kate Forbes, and the centre or slightly left going for Humza, there also seems to be some disparity between the Greens and SNP candidates, this'll leave a nasty feeling in the government after the winner is announced i think.
Since Sturgeon's resignation announcement it's been interesting watching the Twitter Unionist shills & bots trying to build their hate against the future FM, whoever it might be...
So another poll puts Kate Forbes the favourite among SNP voters:
Forbes's 23% isn't quite as much as the previous poll which put her on 28% but gives her exactly the same 8% lead over Humza Yousaf as the previous one.
It would appear that among SNP voters at least her comments concerning how she would have voted on equal marriage legislation hasn't destroyed her credibility, as some were convinced it had.
A breakdown amongst SNP members might not be so clear-cut but it should also be remembered that the voting process is carried out under STV and I rather suspect that, assuming Ash Regan is third after the first count, Kate Forbes will pick up the majority of second preferences.
No links or reference to actual numbers surveyed though.
The % poll was also conducted by The Times which, with a little critical thought, would lead you to conclude that the results weren't that surprising.
No idea who conducted the other poll or any other info. Could well have been a couple of folk in the office for all we know.
There's a poll with a sample of 1001, conducted by Big Partnership (nope - never heard of them) with similar numbers
https://charts.opinionmatters.com/OM10975/OM10975_DDD.html
Sorry my mistake, I thought that poll I linked was among SNP voters, it is actually a poll of all voters, it would appear.
It's the previous poll which put Forbes in the lead with 28% which was among SNP voters only:
Still, my point remains the same, ie her recent comment concerning equal marriages doesn't seem to have written off her leadership ambitions.
The % poll was also conducted by The Times
Commissioned by the Times, not conducted by them. The pollster was Panelbase, I know nothing about them but presumably they are competent pollsters whose business relies on their credibility and customer confidence.
And that proves what?
That he didn't have the courage of his conviction to vote either way and dodged the issue. Even an abstention on the grounds he wasn,t going to vote on the matter because he wanted his religion to be separate from politics would be better than sneaking away from a major issue.
A
If Alex Neill was so bothered about it,why did he wait nine years?
Because there wasn't a leadership election until now. Elections are when we question the ability and character of candidates.
@irc you misunderstand. Are they publishing it because they have verified the story etc. and have a good case or did they just copy it off that blog wholesale with no checks to verify anything?
Let's face it, Yousef isn't liked by a lot of people so it doesn't take much imagination to see why someone would want to discredit him further. That's entirely their prerogative but as said, there's plenty of stuff out there without resorting to making stuff up.
It is nothing to do with Craig Murray's blog. He may have been first to run the story but it is confirmed by Alex Neil who was there in govt when it happened.
“There was a request from Humza, because, in his words, of pressure he was under from the mosque for him to be absent from the vote.
“And Alex Salmond, the first minister, gave him permission to do that.
“And a ministerial meeting was arranged to take place at exactly the same time as the vote in Glasgow to give Humza cover for not being there.”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-denies-arranging-meeting-29307070
Humsa's ministerial diary confirms the dates of the meetings and when they were arranged.
The meetings the vote, and the date each was arranged are here.
https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/questions-and-answers/question?ref=s4w-19630
https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/questions-and-answers/question?ref=s4w-19630
Kate Forbes political career was funded by anti abortion Christian lobby group that does not declare where it gets funding from.
Careful now, don't be persecuting those fine upstanding Christians.
John Swinney standing down too. Strange he didn't announce this at the same time as the FM. It might have allowed a few joint-tickets to be proposed.
John Swinney standing down too. Strange he didn’t announce this at the same time as the FM. It might have allowed a few joint-tickets to be proposed.
I'm guessing he was (i) as surprised by most people at Sturgeon's timing so hadn't given it too much thought, and (ii) can now see who the likely leaders are and has considered if he wants to be part of their team - going now is more graceful and better for the party than the media presenting it as a tantrum after the election. I mean his choices are: Work with Kate who he picked a fight with on Faith, Work with Humza who he will know to be useless, or work with Ash who quit the gov he was deputy leader of to make a stand on the GRR he voted for. Seems like a logical decision - especially since he's obviously happy to have peaked in his political career.
I’m guessing he was (i) as surprised by most people at Sturgeon’s timing
Yep - I agree on his reaction to the three candidates. I'd have thought there might have been some discussion prior to her decision though. It just makes her departure seem even more sudden.
I wonder if there's any scope for two of the three to join forces?
I wonder if there’s any scope for two of the three to join forces?
After the last few contests i'm going to say no!
My goodness these candidates are lacklustre! the brown but grey man. the religious bigot and the return to tartan tories candidate.
Is this really the best the SNP have or are some folk keeping their powder dry?
On a related topic - Westminster are going to block another scottish government policy - the bottle return scheme.
On a related topic – Westminster are going to block another scottish government policy – the bottle return scheme.
From what i've read, this wouldn't be such a bad thing, a lot of unhappiness about this scheme, and i believe all 3 of the candidates have said they'd either scrap it or pause it anyway!
The UK wide scheme is happening soon i believe though, so any talk of blocking might be down to this, or the number of independents raising this to their MPs/MSPs, it's another one of those projects that has a lot of conflict within the Scottish Government, but still being run out with a lot of 'we'll fix that later' approach.
Its sheer spoiling from Westminster. Can't allow those uppity scots to have their own progressive green policies showing up westminster policies and there is zero chance of a UK wide scheme
Ash Regan has come out in support of assisted dying. The other two are against it
@tjagain, it would be better for the UK to adopt as a whole trading block as the problem with cross border trade on the bottle recycling scheme is quite complex. Especially around web based sales. Essentially companies will have to make Scotland/Rest of UK a seperate trading country with different rules for a short space of time until the rest of the UK come on board.
My understanding is from looking at how to implement this in a large online and store based retailer, however I understand this is even harder for smaller traders from what I have read in the news.
It is a great idea and will be implemented, it is more a timing issue