You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There is no chance of a UK wide scheme. There is no real conflict with the rest of the UK.
Alister Jack quoted in the HoC how it'll add £2.40 to 12 bottles of Aldi water - 'forgetting' that under the English scheme it is planned to do EXACTLY the same.
Only difference from what I've can find out is the English scheme won't cover glass, whereas the Scottish scheme will.
It is a great idea and will be implemented, it is more a timing issue
How long should Scotland wait?
There is no real conflict with the rest of the UK.
My experience based on how to implement for a large online and store based retailer. Can I ask what yours is based on?
@intheborders tbh that is really not one for me to answer is it. That is probably more for the leaders of Holyrood to answer. All the candidates for SNP leadership seem to be rolling back on it. My point is ONLY it is a lot better for UK as a whole to do it all at once.
Personally I think it should be implemented UK wide asap and we are already looking at how we do this across the EU and as one large trading bloc it does make it a lot easier than the UK.
Can I ask what yours is based on?
Reading what the scheme actually consists of not the scaremongering from some right wing folk
Its not the system I would want at all but its a decent stab at it.
Personally I think it should be implemented UK wide asap and we are already looking at how we do this across the EU and as one large trading bloc it does make it a lot easier than the UK.
Its never going to be implemented under the tories. Of course it would be better UK wide but that is not on offer. so once again Scotland is prevented from having its democratically elected leaders enacting the policies they were elected on by an undemocratic Uk government
All the candidates for SNP leadership seem to be rolling back on it.
This. The scheme has come under widespread criticism within Scotland. It seems reasonable to pause it pending a review. I don't think that trying to blame Westminster helps.
I can't see a UK wide bottle return service being implemented by any government no matter what their leaning.
We can't even create a common UK recycling system. It differs hugely even between adjoining local council areas. There are 3 systems within 10 miles of where I live.
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
Perhaps, but its also some massive Holyrood muppetry (1) not to have sough the consent the scheme needed in advance; (2) to not look to agree a UK wide approach (so e.g. the labelling could be the same for both) - if Whitehall is really the problem there there's been a surprising silence from the Scot Gov who usually love a change to blame them; (3) to show that cross border cooperation is possible and if we get our own country we can behave like grown ups on issues where cooperation makes sense. Westminster should have been delighted to let the Scots pilot a scheme they could simply extend if it was a success or laugh and point if it was a disaster!
That said simply blocking stuff because it doesn't suit rUK is a dangerous game. Regardless of any legal challenge, it feeds an indy argument that "our perfectly valid policies are not compatible with the rUK, we need out". I think they believe they can win Scottish tory votes by saying "look, we save you from the biggest craziness of the nats". The only people I've spoken to that think that is good would vote tory regardless.
I can’t see a UK wide bottle return service being implemented by any government no matter what their leaning.
We can’t even create a common UK recycling system. It differs hugely even between adjoining local council areas. There are 3 systems within 10 miles of where I live.
But that disparity is true in Scotland too and from a technical perspective there is no reason why the Scottish scheme could not work across 32 local authorities here so I see no reason why a UK wide scheme would not work. The main contention within Scotland seems to be should glass be included (I have no strong views either way, although the noise against seems to be coming from people who didn't want smokings bans, campaigned against drink drive limit changes and argued the toss on covid so I'm not pre-disposed to thinking they are right!). The main contention outside Scotland seems to be that the two schemes are not unified - ie. labelling etc has not been standardised so you may end up with Scottish specific packaging etc.
I take it none of you have ever bothered to read the small print on a beer bottle or can where it lists the refund available under various deposit schemes from Denmark to New Zealand?
And of course glass should be included! God forbid pubs have to put bottles back in crates rather than flinging them into a bin.
My problem with the bottle return scheme is that it's actually way more inconvenient for me. At the moment I recycle all my glass and plastic bottles - they go into a recycling box or wheelie bin and are then collected by the council and recycled (hopefully). This is really easy and convenient. With the proposed scheme, I will now have to save all my recycling at home and then return it the designated machine or shop where I will get my money back (as a voucher?).
I can see how it may increase the recycling by people who currently don't, so understand that this is the point.
With the proposed scheme, I will now have to save all my recycling at home and then return it the designated machine or shop where I will get my money back (as a voucher?).
Looking at it another way, surely it's as easy to get them to where they were purchased as it was bringing them home?
As for 'hopefully', that's very much the operative word here.
I take it none of you have ever bothered to read the small print on a beer bottle or can where it lists the refund available under various deposit schemes from Denmark to New Zealand?
But bottles intended for the UK market only won't have that. Changing your labelling process is a PITA, but to have to do it now AND again in a years time is a PITA. I wouldn't assume either Scotland or UK have bothered to replicate successful approaches elsewhere. Both far too full of our own belief that we can do it better!
And of course glass should be included! God forbid pubs have to put bottles back in crates rather than flinging them into a bin.
I agree - but do you know if glass bottles in crates get reused (presumably more efficient) or recycled (actually bottles take up more volume than smashed glass so potentially less green). If the argument is that bottles in crates are reused and therefore more "eco" than smashing melting and reforming glass then the Scot Gov are missing a key bit of messaging.
My problem with the bottle return scheme is that it’s actually way more inconvenient for me. At the moment I recycle all my glass and plastic bottles – they go into a recycling box or wheelie bin and are then collected by the council and recycled (hopefully).
I guess we don't know how much of plastic bottles make it into proper recycling or not? Certainly not all councils do kerbside recycling for glass.
This is really easy and convenient. With the proposed scheme, I will now have to save all my recycling at home and then return it the designated machine or shop where I will get my money back (as a voucher?).
I think the problem is the public know little about how this will work in reality. So the only people making a noise are the hospitality sector and drinks industry. For example, is there a plan for people who get on-line shopping? It feels like they've missed a major bit of messaging opportunity - but given who is leading the scheme I'm not surprised that everyone is confused!
st66, that's a good point, there may be unintended consequences here. My recycling bin can take glass, plastic and metal. If bottles were recycled via a nother mechanism what happens to the jars, tins and plastic trays. COuld make the collection of these as a separate stream even more uneconomic.
I'm just wondering as well whether this will actually be environmentally friendly, great if you're back hauling the empties on delivery vehicles but in many cases that won't be the return route.
What we really need is primarily a reduction packaging, the amount on premium products in particular and the size of some packaging vs the contents is obscene combined with mixed collections from home seperated in a dedicated facility to maximise the recovered volume. All we need then is a market for the recyclables which current doesn't take anywhere near enough. As usual this is being done the wrong way around, eliminate or reduce the packaging in the first place, increase the percentage of packing made of recycled materials, then the collection and recycling of the waste won't actually be a major problem as there will be less to collect and an incentive to do so as it becomes a lot less expensive to dispose of vs normal 'waste'.
The Scottish scheme seems to be harking back to the good old days.
I guess politically it's good to pretend you're having an original idea so there might be some resistance in government to simply saying, 'Look, they've been doing it in Scandinavia for years without any problem.'
Here in Norway I've been taking my empties back to the supermarket for years and getting enough back for a brand new full can of beer. Every supermarket has a machine to do the returns and the small shops don't.
I'm not sure how the hospitality sector does it here but none of them seem to have been put out of business because they have to deal with the empties.
There's been various queries raised and a lot of small businesses, both in the beverage industry and small retailers are worried about it, from simple things such as storage and overhead costs, to larger issues in terms of manufacture of bottles and so on.
There's a lot of other queries, like the additional cost of multipacks, roll out of machines, the sign up rate of small businesses and how it'll impact them if they don't sign up before it's launched. This is why two of the three candidates say they'd cancel it and rework it, and the third, Kate Forbes, say's she'd delay it by a year.
These aren't English or Welsh issues or discussions on the DRS, it's from Scottish businesses and individuals, not sure how it's got to the UK parliament to be discussed, would need to read up on that.
As for the UK scheme, it's coming in 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/deposit-return-scheme-for-drinks-containers-moves-a-step-closer
As for the UK scheme, it’s coming in 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/deposit-return-scheme-for-drinks-containers-moves-a-step-closer/blockquote >
Actually, your link says it'll only apply to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Not the UK.
There’s been various queries raised and a lot of small businesses, both in the beverage industry and small retailers are worried about it, from simple things such as storage and overhead costs, to larger issues in terms of manufacture of bottles and so on.
I don't really understand why Scotland is so special that the answer to these queries isn't just, 'We'll do what they do in Norway/Denmark/Sweden'
My problem with the bottle return scheme is that it’s actually way more inconvenient for me.
That may just be the price of radically reducing the amount of plastic and glass waste.
Actually, your link says it’ll only apply to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Not the UK.
Yep, only due to Scotland launching their own scheme though, this will make the DRS UK wide when launched, if Scotland launch this year of course.
I don’t really understand why Scotland is so special that the answer to these queries isn’t just, ‘We’ll do what they do in Norway/Denmark/Sweden’
Not sure why, but most of the Scandinavian systems have been in for a generation, and have the infrastructure and normality that it's part of life now, not sure what the infrastructure and processes will be for the Scottish roll out, it's something that's needing to happen, but whatever the issues are, it's still causing an uproar.
Anyway, it's a long way from the old days of Barrs and Bon Accord bottles getting you 10p (and 20p in the end!) a bottle, i used to up my pocket money by returning dumped bottles!
As for the UK scheme, it’s coming in 2025
Whats that? a pig just flew past
Whats that? a pig just flew past
Had you heard of the rUK scheme before 26 minutes ago?
so once again Scotland is prevented from having its democratically elected leaders enacting the policies they were elected on by an undemocratic Uk government
...or once again the SNP has fumbled its handling of a policy over a number of years and then their poor understanding of UK law (which provides the framework for the whole Scottish parliamentary system) has tripped them up?
I don’t really understand why Scotland is so special that the answer to these queries isn’t just, ‘We’ll do what they do in Norway/Denmark/Sweden’
Exactly.
Or Germany, where you can literlly walk into a shop and deposit an entire crate of bottles at a time which go back to the brewery for reuse, exactly as we used to do with Barrs glass cheques.
See also Travel Cards - they can't bloody do that right either, constantly 10 years behind technology. Could have just bought the Oyster/Octopus/Similar mass transit system but no, let's make something in-house that is constantly delayed and playing catch-up.
Back on topic - I assume all those structures that have been appearing outside various Aldi's are the deposit banks? Wonder how much they will be due in compensation if it all gets scrapped?
Final TV debate going on just now, the DRS getting a kicking from most, this is really depressing watching these three battle it out, Humza just looks desperate, Kate looks like she's been watching US debates for tips, Ash looks like the most normal of the 3, but probably the outsider.
Its all very depressing really. I can see this becoming an existential crisis for the SNP if Forbes gets it. A large part of the party and the vote will not vote for her. Greens would quit the coalition. next holyrood election we get a labour / tory coaltion.
Yousaf is hardly inspiring
Regan is right wing but does support assisted dying unlike the other two although she is against trans rights
Murrell goes as well
OK so I did feel they needed a refresh if not a period in opposition but this is getting ridiculous.
The kids will be happy. The return of the Glass Cheque.
I'll wager theres a number of bottle merchants on here. Paid for my sweeties bitd.
Live from Bute House
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/9f6nN1gp/Saigon-hubert-van-es-1.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/9f6nN1gp/Saigon-hubert-van-es-1.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
🤣
Of course, now that Murrell has resigned, he won't have to answer any questions about his £100,000 "loans" to the SNP.
I’m being naive but what exactly is (allegedly) wrong with a ‘loan’ ?
I've never quite understood this one either. Weird thing to do but whats actually wrong? covering up misuse of funds or something? I don't know
They're all at it, for me it's only when it's criminal or smearing that i'm bothered in terms of hounding them out, reality is these loans are what all parties tend to get, be that cash loans or loans of property and support, i.e. functions paid for, candidate IT/Stationary support, etc, etc. From the stories i believe he's left due to something about the SNP members issue that's been talked about lately.
Personally, i do think something has happened to push Sturgeon out, more so now seeing the quality of her replacement contest, there's something going on internally, first they replaced Blackford with pretty much an empty suit, now Salmon is off with either a bit of a laughing stock or a bit of a right winger favourite to replace her!
What's wrong with a loan?
1) the SNP (which is managed by the husband and politically led by the wife) didn't declare it for a year after they should have
2) if the party is broke and owes you a hundred grand, and you can call in the loan any day, then you are in a position to precipitate the party's bankruptcy if it displeases you (or your wife)
3) the SNP loves "Tories are out of touch with reality" stories - but meanwhile the electorate is asked to believe that loaning someone £100,000 is such a run of the mill thing that husband didn't even mention it to wife.
Personally, i do think something has happened to push Sturgeon out,
I don't think so. I believe what she said. she has been deputy and then FM for 12 years. the timing allows all the fighting to be over and done with before the next election and for the new leader to create their own policies.
more so now seeing the quality of her replacement contest, there’s something going on internally,
yes there is - there is a power struggle between the left and the right and between the gradualists and the independence now lot
I actually think that some potential candidates are keeping their powder dry for after the next Holyrood election. the next leader will just be a caretaker until then. After the next Holyrood election I expect the SNP to lose a few seats and for a labour / tory coaltion to take over.
the candidates are not great for sure.
I just do not know enough about the loan to be sure. I guess if it smells fishy it is? Electoral commission just gave them a slap on the wrist for it
£100,000 loan.
Membership income stable despite the, vehemently denied, drop in members.
"£600,000 gone AWOL from the Indy fundraiser."
Might all be connected?
Did anyone else listen to the News Agents Podcast on Friday ( https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5jYXB0aXZhdGUuZm0vdGhlLW5ld3MtYWdlbnRzLw/episode/MmU3ZTZhMDktZDdmZC00YzdmLWFlYzEtNzk5Zjk2YTg2NTc5?ep=14)
IMO Regan came across very poorly. I'd be far from happy with her as FM (it was never going to happen anyway mind you). Bizarrely Blackford (who obviously isn't standing) who I've always found pretty unappealing came across much better.
But yes, wheels are well and truly off. Maintaining competency(or a veneer of) as the leading independence party was pretty key to the core argument bringing some of us over the line to the independence is best side. A broken SNP is going to test the independence resolve of many voters. Depressing times.
I think this all rather goes to show the fragility of the independance argument that Westminster is full of terrible politicians and we need to get away from them so our better quality of politician can lead us. Goes to show the there are a handful of politicians that are half decent but it doesn't really matter where you are most of them are not.
There are plenty of other reasoned arguments for independance (which can still be argued either way) but I think this puts pay to the cult of the SNP vs Westminster. Can only se this damaging the independance vote going forward which hopefully will allow the local politicians to tackle the real problems in Scotland but they will still probably just blame Westminster like Westminster blamed the EU for all of the UKs ills and look how that turned out.....
"£600,000 gone AWOL from the Indy fundraiser.”
Exactly. Whether it is a muddle or a fiddle it doesn't scream competence. How hard is it to pay funds raised for an Indy campaign into a bank account separate from the general SNP party account?
Sturgeon was good at politics but not good at getting things done. It needs more than just passing laws.
"Legally binding" NHS waiting times for example.
stumpyjon
Full Member
I think this all rather goes to show the fragility of the independance argument that Westminster is full of terrible politicians and we need to get away from them so our better quality of politician can lead us.
I agree entirely. So much of the Independence platform's thinking is made up of mystical appeals to a Scottish politician or voter that is more enlightened, less racist, more European, more forward-thinking than the average British politician or voter. Why? Because they just are. And then you have very similar problems - black men killed in the street by police, venal politicians - and there's totalt silence on the part of Scot Nats.
Maintaining competency(or a veneer of) as the leading independence party was pretty key to the core argument
This is absolutely right. Support for Scottish independence has consistently been below support for the SNP. This means at least some voters were voting SNP despite its independence position, not because of it.
The attractive thing about the SNP has been its slightly boring, mainstream European social democratic platform of competent government. This is not a bad thing considering what else is happening in Europe! But if it then turns out the competence was a charade, and the healthcare and education wasn't that good...then what?
Kate Forbes heads SNP candidates among public - poll
Kate Forbes is viewed more favourably by the general public but Humza Yousaf is most popular among SNP voters, a new poll has suggested as the two vie for the party’s leadership.
With just days left in the contest to succeed Nicola Sturgeon in Bute House, Ipsos Scotland released a survey of 1,023 Scots carried out between March 17 and 21 - 427 of whom voted for the SNP at the last Holyrood election.
According to the poll, Yousaf is the most popular among SNP voters, with a net favourability of 11%, compared to 6% for his rival.
But Forbes can lay claim to the highest net popularity among the general public with -8%, compared to the Scottish Health Secretary’s -20%.Former minister Ash Regan polled the worst of the three candidates.
I just do not know what to make of this. I just wish they had a better candidate. Forbes is personable and it would be good to have someone out of the central belt but her position on equality is unnacceptable to me (as is her position on assisted dying - but that is probably not a significant factor to most) and more importantly to a significant section of the party. I really think she would split the party. Mhari Black was particularly scathing about her
Yousaf is just terminally dull
Regan is the only one to support assisted dying and the only one ( despite being a bit to the right?) that I feel I could trust. she is also the only "independence now" candidate. somehow she is the outsider?
I'm not that close to all this tho. I just want the best for my country. I'm pretty scunnered by the lack of political nous and talent here
[Regan] is also the only “independence now” candidate. somehow she is the outsider?
The SNP has been more popular than the concept of independence for years. But I'm surprised she wasn't more popular among the party membership.
she is also the only “independence now” candidate. somehow she is the outsider?
Regan had a lower profile to start with. A truncated hustings (against SNP constitution) hasn't helped her. The current leadership has spent the past 9 years saying now is not the time. That message is still with the membership so alternative strategies are considered to be pie in the sky. The most ardent/commited indy supporters have likely already left the SNP too (I don't believe the majority of the 50,000 lost memberships are due to GRR. Mine wasn't.), so it's hardly a surprise that she's not winning amongst those that are left.
Yousaf? Last seen reversing away from his commitment to a court challenge of the Section 35 on GRR. Handy that he left it until the votes were almost all cast and that there's no way of folk altering their vote. He's changed almost ever policy he started with, has a shit record in his various ministerial roles but is, without doubt, the one favoured by the current leadership. That gives him a lot of membership votes.
Forbes. Your position on equality is what you should be questioning. As I've already said, if you cant follow up the word religious with anything other than the word bigot then you're not as inclusive or progressive as you think you are. In a democratic party, policy should be made by all the party members. I don't see that if SNP policy was in favour of, say, assisted dying, that the party leader should/would have a veto. Of course, that's not the way the SNP has been governed these past 9 years, where democracy has been basically stripped away.
With either of Forbes or Regan I think there will be a bit of a "drains up" undertaken within the SNP. It would be need to carefully balanced. Reform is needed but too much looking back could split the party. If a few of the dunderheids (like Black) and grifters (like Wishart) find it's not for them any longer then at least what's left holds some promise for the future. If it's Yousaf then you can say goodbye to any hope you ever had of seeing indy in your lifetime.
The SNP has been more popular than the concept of independence for years. But I’m surprised she wasn’t more popular among the party membership.
Errmmm - is that really true? Both poll around mid 40s %
Scotroutes. I have no real issue with folk that keep their religion private. Forbes made it 100% clear that she could not not and her vote would be based on her religion on matters such as equality.
How a social democratic party can be led by someone who believes intrinsically that some folk are worth less than others - and that is her position
I call out bigotry where ever I see it and what ever the reason. It is not acceptable to me to have someone that believes discrimination against certain groups in society is acceptable
Its blatent discrimination based upon her religious belief - what is that but religious bigoty?
the church of scotland does not believe in discrimination against homosexuals or women ( I don't think any more)
It is not acceptable to me to have someone that believes discrimination against certain groups in society is acceptable
So you're a bigot.
ONly towards those who believe in discrimination against certain groups.
Jeepers dude - I worked for a religious organisation once. I used to take folk to church in my own time, I have fought for folk to have their religious rights respected. I regularly give money to a school founded by religious folk - but that school has a non discriminatory policy
I will not accept anyone saying "its right to discriminate against people based on their sexuality because my religion says its right."
In the 21st century do yo think its acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals? forbes does.
Errmmm – is that really true? Both poll around mid 40s %
Yes - SNP vote share trends above support for independence. Point is not all SNP voters even want independence, let alone independence now.
Yes – SNP vote share trends above support for independence
citation please
You're discriminating against her based on her religious beliefs.
I have fought for folk to have their religious rights respected.
But only the ones you approve of.
Anyway, as above. In a democratic party she has one vote.
No I am not and that is not so. I disapprove of all religious as you well know. I can tolerate it when its private and does not adversely affect others.
this is the point you are missing. She wants to actively discriminate against gay folk and justifies that by her religion. Thats unacceptable and borderline illegal
For example I find islam even inthe mainstream to be discriminatory. I also have a personal conviction about futile treatment. I had a muslim patient who because of his religous belief wanted futile treatment. I fought for his rights to have it. Against my personal beliefsbecause that was the right thing to do
Or the woman I took to catholic funeral mass for her father when she had no one else to do so - no family. I did this in my own time while not being paid. Because it was the right thing to do.
Religion is a protected characteristic in equality legislation. Your discrimination is therefore borderline illegal .
You are badly missing a point here scotroutes. That religous protection does not extend to allowing them to discriminate against others as a matter of public policy. Lots of legal stuff around this. You are not allowed to discriminate against anyone in the supply of goods and services for any reason - even religeon.
Also my position is not discrimination because I have no power over her.
If she was mainstream CoS I would have no huge issue - because the CoS is not discriminatory and does not justify discrimination on the basis of sexuality as acceptble
I'm voting for Forbes purely because she'll provide those opposed to independence (especially UK Govt and its client media) with less 'ammunition' than they would with the other two.
No I am not and that is not so. I disapprove of all religious as you well know. I can tolerate it when its private and does not adversely affect others.
I see. So any religious beliefs are OK as long as they don't live their life in that manner. Forbes has not said she wishes to remove any rights from anyone. So how are her views affecting others?
A bit like the helmet debates. I don't care what anyone thinks as long as they don't pass laws making me wear a helmet. Forbes can believe homosexuality is a sin but as long as she doesn't start passing laws removing rights from any section of society it doesn't matter.
As an aethiest I think all religions are mistaken. But as long as their beliefs don't mean they pass laws affecting me go for it. I have cousins who are deeply religious. Lovely people. We just disagree about whether there is a god. We don't fall out over it
Forbes has not said she wishes to remove any rights from anyone. So how are her views affecting others?
She made it clear that she would not vote for equality for homosexuals. She made it clear she believes it acceptable to discriminate against them
I've seen no evidence that Yousaf is any less religious than Forbes.
However, Forbes hides behind her religion. Yousaf doesn't.
Yousaf realises that he can't simply justify his views by saying, 'As a Muslim I believe this...' because he would be crucified for it (pun intended). Even when he says things that are contrary to his religious beliefs people still question what he 'really' believes (for what it's worth, I think he did intentionally skip the vote but I understand why).
Forbes simply says, 'because my religion' and is given a pass by many because this is Scotland.
It is absolutely fine for a FM to be religious. However, they can't hide behind their religion. They have to be able to make secular arguments to justify their views. If they can't, then they need to accept they have private views that they keep very much to themselves and they speak to the views that they can justify in a secular way.
Forbes isn't being discriminated against because of her religion. Her religion is protecting her from the scrutiny any other candidates views would receive.
Religion is a protected characteristic in equality legislation. Your discrimination is therefore borderline illegal .
Absolute toss. Get in the sea (or, if you're capable, walk on its surface).
I'm not sure she is being protected from scrutiny at all. she has had a tough ride on this
Politecameraaction - a bit harsh to say the least. Scotroutes is making a strong point. No need to be rude
I’ve seen no evidence that Yousaf is any less religious than Forbes.
HIs wife does not wear a headscarf. Is that an indication?
I’m not sure she is being protected from scrutiny at all. she has had a tough ride on this
I've not heard anyone ask the natural follow up question, 'But why do you believe this?'
She seems to just say, 'Because my religion' and the interview moves on.
If she were an atheist (or Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, etc) and she said she the things she's said she would be expected to justify these views using secular arguments. Using the 'It's my religion' answer would not be available to any non-Christian candidate.
That is what I mean. She has never been pushed on why she believes what she believes.
Scotroutes is making a strong point. No need to be rude
It's a strong point of complete toss. It is not illegal (or even borderline illegal, whatever that means) to discriminate against someone on religious grounds when deciding to cast a vote at an election.
HIs wife does not wear a headscarf. Is that an indication?
I don't know. Although it's more likely to be an indication of his wife's depth of feeling.
We tend to assume it's only Christians who can be in relationships where one partner is more religious than the other but I think in the UK it's equally possible for non-Christians to have relationships where the commitment to religion varies between partners.
tjagain Full Member
I’m pretty scunnered by the lack of political nous and talent here
One thing that seems to have served the SNP well in the past was that compared to the UK-wide parties they took Holyrood seriously and had talented people there, whereas the ambitious members of other parties opted to go to Westminster. The way that following Sturgeon's resignation many seemed to be a bit embarrassed by the selection of leadership candidates does seem to have undermined that.
Forbes said while she wouldn't have backed the legislation, she would have "respected and defended the democratic choice that was made".
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23335035.kate-forbes-voted-gay-marriage-scotland/
Being able to disagree with a policy while accepting it is the wish of the majority is a bit like basic democracy.
I would have voted, as a matter of conscience, along the lines of mainstream teaching in most major religions that marriage is between a man and a woman.
CoS allow gay marriage in their churches IIRC Judaism does as well or some branches of it ( both a bit qualified but not the absolutist position she holds and claims other religions have). Catholicism remains firmly against it again IIRC anglican is moving towards it with some bishops wanting it but the church as a whole remains against it
thats her trying to row back and justify her position. she is mis representing other religions.
Fair point Bruce. I was looking to see any indications that i could find about what type of islam Yousaf follows. It would certainly mean he is not a fundamentalist. IMO but beyond that you are right - we should not draw conclusions about one half of a marriage from the other really
Sikhism is against gay marriage
Hinduism seems very divided.
thats the major religions in Scotland ( with my above post)
So for Forbes to claim her views are in alignment with all major religeons is at best disingenious at worst outright false
I’m voting for Forbes purely because she’ll provide those opposed to independence (especially UK Govt and its client media) with less ‘ammunition’ than they would with the other two.
Im interested in this On what basis? ( not questioning your judgement - looking for information)
I was looking to see any indications that i could find about what type of islam Yousaf follows
Most Muslims of ****stani heritage are Sunni, would it make a difference if he Shi'ite?
Edit: Btw it's permissable/halal for a Muslim man to marry a Christian or a Jewish woman, although it isn't allowed the other way round. So Yousaf's wife doesn't even need to be Muslim and he could still be considered to be a devout Muslim.
I was thinking more about at what level rather than which sect if you see what I mean. How fundamentlist he is. Thats not really the right word but I hope yo get the gist.
Re Forbes, I'm with TJ on this.
You need to strip away the religious aspects of it and just look at it as policy. Forbes' personal stance on the rights of homosexuals, same sex marriages, conversion therapy etc are at odds with the stance of the majority of the membership, the SNP voting public and their manifesto. I really don't care what her source of motivation for that stance is - it might be interesting to understand how she came to those opinions but I'm not sure it's relevant. Does that preclude her from being a member of the party - of course not. And whilst I appreciate she has said she would not attempt to change the policy of the party in these areas if she became leader I just don't think that's good enough - I think wanting a leader of a party to have personal opinions that align with the policy of the party on every significant issue is a pretty reasonable expectation. I don't think it counts as bigotry to not wish to see a leader of a party elected that cannot hand on heart say they personally believe in everything in that party's manifesto. Plenty of normal party members will not believe in everything a party stands for but a party leader should be held to a higher standard. For me the bigotry line would be crossed if she was ejected from the party for values born of her religious beliefs - but this obviously is not what is happening here.
She has never been pushed on why she believes what she believes.
Err, you really don't get this "faith" thing at all, do you? What sort of secular argument are you expecting to hear? It's not like she can come up with physical proof of her God.
LOlz @ Scotroutes You mean she disnae have a photo of him? dagnamit
mainstream teaching in most major religions [is] that marriage is between a man and a woman.
she is mis representing other religions.
No, you're going too far there. I'm athiest and in favour of equal marriage, but she is factually correct. organised religion is overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Only 40% of Christians are Prods, and only some Prod groups in some countries are in favour of equal marriage (although tbf the Church of Scotland is gently ambivalent on the subject - ministers may celebrate gay marriage, but are not required to as part of their job). There may be a few fringe Jewish and other groups too - but nothing with serious numbers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_same-sex_marriage
I think wanting a leader of a party to have personal opinions that align with the policy of the party on every significant issue is a pretty reasonable expectation
really - I mean clearly there’s an issue if they disagree on some fundamentals but what if they were fairly relaxed on nuclear weapons but the party is not (or indeed does that mean Douglas Ross has to believe they are fundamentally a great idea because the tories support them?), or say Fracking - could a party leader buy an argument that it’s a necessary evil in the short term and if we are going to frack might as well be on our own doorstep but follow a party line that not in Scotland? What should a leader do if they decide over time that a policy is actually a bit wonky but the party has had a firm position on it (say Rishi wanted to argue something same around Immigration) must they resign as leader to challenge the party mantra?
FWIW as a fairly convinced atheist and more importantly secularist I really would much rather the leader of the country was able to make rational decisions using evidence than baseless beliefs passed on from a convincing orator. On the other hand a politician who is quite upfront about what she actually thinks, rather than trying to manage a popularist profile is rather pleasing. Her rationale for going to that church because it is the closest was as good as any other justification (although I don’t think that will be enough “carbon footprint” argument to get her back in with the greens!). Let’s face it though, if she does get elected, no politician in history will be as intently studied on how she votes/influences/pushes on direction of policy as she will be - so I’m not sure the “liberal” agenda will suffer under her anymore than under a different leader who is just trying to pander to the right wing voters. Indeed, if she turns out to be a good leader she might actually bring some of the crazies to a “it doesn’t hurt you so get over it” middle ground.
I agree with your basic point poly but being for discrimination based on sexual orientation is rather fundamental is it not?
On the liberal agenda
she has already said she does not back trans rights. She is firmly against assisted dying. She is against equal treatment of gay folk. ( Ok assisted dying should be and will be a conscience vote and I doubt many folk are as concerned about that as me)
Regardless of how you view these issues i cannot see the coalition with the greens surviving her being elected and I do not think the left of the SNP can go along with her.
the leader of the party is highly influential in what policies will be followed. Would the GRA have been pushed thru under Salmond?
One of the big reasons I am really gutted by Sturgeons resignation is we ( the assisted dying campaign) had got her to change her mind from a firm no to maybe yes. the prospect of a leader who is firmly against it at such a fundamental level upsets me
Her rationale for going to that church because it is the closest was as good as any other justification
In which case why does she hold their fundamentalist beliefs so strongly? None of this bible as allegory pick and chose stuff you get from the CoS
Question from the South of England.
Will the SNP survive the departure of the Sturgeon? From where I sit in (currently a very damp) SE of England it appears that the SNP could implode. The SNP is a very broad church, all of whom have the goal of an independent Scotland. To keep all the different factions in line has required a high degree of central control, firstly through Salmond and then through Sturgeon. Without either of those at the helm of the party, will any of the candidates be able to keep the SNP together?
Obviously there is no reasonable chance of a vote for independence in the short or medium term. So with the central tenet of the SNP not a realistic target, will the party splinter into its factions? And if so (or not) is this good or bad for Scotland.