You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Her faith wasn’t a problem. Her opinions were (of course, her opinions came from her faith but an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse).
id suggest you go back and listen to her interviews again. She frequently referred to the opinions as being those of her faith (it’s a get out card for having stupid unjustifiable opinions).
Also, if anything happened on Sunday morning it would be Monday before she could do anything about it and FMs have to always be on call. Or does the unbreakable rigidity of her faith only apply to certain matters?
well you can create false arguments, call them a cult, and her a religious fundamentalist all you want but it mostly makes you look like a petty minded person who hasn’t bothered to understand how the religious and cultural values of a significant minority of Scotland works! Let’s be clear the new FM is currently eating only in the hours of darkness because he too follows a religion. Does that seem the best way to fuel up for having just taken on a mammoth job?
I will be 100% clear, given the option I will always pick the candidate to lead the country who is areligous. It’s bizarre to me that having strong religious views and making it to leader of a political party are not almost mutually exclusive. BUT I won’t call a long established church a cult just because I don’t understand it; I won’t make up nonsense that no free-church member can work Sundays; and I will not criticise people for being honest about where their values come from.
After the scooter clip was tweeted Yousaf moaned there was no need for the clip to have been released.
Followed shortly afterwards by someone pointing out that Humsa had tweeted a clip of Douglas Ross falling over
Should religion disqualify someone from being an MSP? Of course not. However for me and for many others someone who is unable to keep their religion and their duties as a MSP / Minister / FM separate is not someone I want running things. I want rational decision making not decisions based on faith. So in Forbes case finance is OK IMO, but FM or health would not be.
A significant minority of the people of Scotland are religious. Religion needs to have its place in civic society much as I wish it did not.
The free church is pretty fundamentalist compared to CoS
well you can create false arguments, call them a cult, and her a religious fundamentalist all you want but it mostly makes you look like a petty minded person who hasn’t bothered to understand how the religious and cultural values of a significant minority of Scotland works!
Well, you can insult me because you can't put together a coherent argument all you want but it won't change my questions (the ones I asked on the previous page).
Feel free to educate me. I asked Scotroutes already but he hasn't replied.
1. What are Forbes' restrictions regarding working on Sunday. Does she need to ask someone else for permission or can she self-certify?
Or, if she is simply going to put her faith to one side, why can she do this with this issue but not ones relating to gay marriage, etc?
2. To what extent is she required to obey her husband? If her husband tells her to pursue a certain policy, is she required to do it?
And again, if she is allowed to ignore this aspect of her faith, why is she required to follow others?
These are not false arguments. She has categorically said that she is required to follow her faith. Therefore, we have to know if we are voting for her as FM or are we voting for a combination of her, her husband, her minister, and anyone else who has authority over her, as FM.
Let’s be clear the new FM is currently eating only in the hours of darkness because he too follows a religion. Does that seem the best way to fuel up for having just taken on a mammoth job?
I am getting so sick of this racist false equivalence made between the two. Yes, Yousaf is a Muslim. He is not, however, a fundamentalist. He has never said the job will come 2nd to his faith and he has, in fact, made several statements that have turned much of the Muslim community against him. There's a reason Muslim leaders were supporting Forbes and not him.
If Yousaf is fasting I have heard nothing to say he wouldn't immediately stop if it any way interfered with the job.
Your assumptions and false equivalence are nothing but racism.
1. What are Forbes’ restrictions regarding working on Sunday. Does she need to ask someone else for permission or can she self-certify?
there usually is a general dispensation for essential work. I don't know the wee frees doctrine in detail but thats the norm
Or, if she is simply going to put her faith to one side, why can she do this with this issue but not ones relating to gay marriage, etc?
Thus this is a moot point
2. To what extent is she required to obey her husband? If her husband tells her to pursue a certain policy, is she required to do it?
Is this in the doctrine? I thought the bible said respect? Got a source for that claim?
And again, if she is allowed to ignore this aspect of her faith, why is she required to follow others?
Again - moot point
I agree with the basic thrust of your argument but you need to base it on reality . for me the red line is around equality and assisted dying. No need to invent stuff 🙂
Anyway - she is off to sulk on the back benches having been slapped by a wet fish from Yousaf 🙂 So none of this really matters
Next SNP conference should be fun
Is this in the doctrine? I thought the bible said respect? Got a source for that claim?
Tough reading but knock yourself out.
Tough reading but knock yourself out.
I was going to link to that rather delightful read. Grim indeed.
However, in defence of Forbes - this is a woman who was at the top table of government and was going for the very top job. That in itself is a pretty big indicator that her personal faith was not rigidly aligned to what's written there.
On the fundamentalist issue, I think we sometimes need to be careful to normalise what we know well and demonize what we don't. Most of us know members of the free church - it (and it's members) are all around us. We brush it off as weird and hard to fathom but leave it at that....because we've know it all our lives. Islam is relatively 'new' to many of us personally (clearly it's not new as a faith) or out of our sphere of normality so is easier to label as having a fundamentalist fringe.
Beyond that (and again this is maybe me being more comfortable with what I know) I'd call the free churches as ultra conservative rather than fundamental - it's maybe a nuanced difference. It broke away to remain just that and has by and large kept that moral stand point. It's an alien world amongst us as far as I'm concerned by as TJ says despite my personal feelings it's a real thing for a sizable minority of my fellow Scots so needs to be taken into account and given a place. Just maybe not the FM gig.
That in itself is a pretty big indicator that her personal faith was not rigidly aligned to what’s written there.
That's true.
But then that raises the question, if she can ignore some parts of her faith why is she then required to rigidly adhere to others?
We need to know which parts are flexible and which parts are rigid.
Ouchy
Ta Bruce
Two of my office's most ardent independent supports just had a brief conversation about this. Apparently Yousaf's election is a "****ing disaster" and at least one of the two has now "pretty much given up on the lot of them".
Early by election? Thatshould test the new regime.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/humza-faces-nightmare-start-as-covid-ferrier-by-election-looms/
The Yousaf terror has begun...
> stops reading article there <
But then that raises the question, if she can ignore some parts of her faith why is she then required to rigidly adhere to others?
We need to know which parts are flexible and which parts are rigid.
Given she is now a backbench MSP you can probably live without knowing! I assume you will be going round all MSPs and especially the new cabinet and FM asking the same question? Because she's by no means the only religious person in parliament. I actually thought she was quite clear that how she lives HER life was governed by HER faith and she had no desire to impose that on anyone else. Its not how I would chose to live my life, but then I would neither go hungry from dawn to dusk nor avoid certain foods because of religion either and nobody seems to be asking Humza why those are bits he does and others he's more flexible about?
Early by election? Thatshould test the new regime.
Will it? I mean it's Rutherglen - it's a classic Labour stronghold. It's only in recent times that it's been swapped between SNP and Labour. I think unless it was a spectacular loss the SNP can shrug it off. I'd be more concerned if I was Labour because if they don't win it that would be a big blow. And that assumes "they" can find ~10K people in the constituency who care enough to go through with the petition.
Given she is now a backbench MSP you can probably live without knowing!
And if she decides to stick to the backbenches or roles where her faith won't cause a conflict of interest then none of us need worry.
However, I would be surprised if this is the last time we hear her name and the FM job mentioned in the same breath.
and nobody seems to be asking Humza why those are bits he does and others he’s more flexible about?
BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER SAID HIS FAITH IS GOING TO INTERFERE WITH HIS JOB!
****s sake, how many times does it have to be said?!
Just because he is Muslim doesn't mean he is a fundamentalist and to suggest it does (because everyone knows all Muslims are fundamentalists) is ****ing racist.
The 14 day limit is to send a Notice of Intended Prosecution.
https://kangandco.co.uk/2023/01/27/seat-belt-mobile-phone-offences-caught-on-camera-2/
poly Free Member
Will it? I mean it’s Rutherglen – it’s a classic Labour stronghold. It’s only in recent times that it’s been swapped between SNP and Labour. I think unless it was a spectacular loss the SNP can shrug it off. I’d be more concerned if I was Labour because if they don’t win it that would be a big blow. And that assumes “they” can find ~10K people in the constituency who care enough to go through with the petition.
I've a good friend who lives in Rutherglen. Apparently Margaret Ferrier's constituency office has been trying to hire staff for some time now and has been completely unable to persuade anyone to work for her, and he's described her as basically doing no work for the constituency so I don't think she's very popular at all there. I recall he was very frustrated that her trial didn't result in anything that could trigger a recall either. So while it is a very small sample size and anecdotal evidence I'd say there's at least a bit of a desire within Rutherglen to see her recalled.
Allegedly her main goal since this all came up is to hang on until the next general election as that'd be when she qualifies for an MP's pension.
BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER SAID HIS FAITH IS GOING TO INTERFERE WITH HIS JOB!
* sake, how many times does it have to be said?!
Just because he is Muslim doesn’t mean he is a fundamentalist and to suggest it does (because everyone knows all Muslims are fundamentalists) is * racist.
But there's a list of people who said it DID affect his ability to vote on a contentious issue. I wouldn't describe either of them as Fundamentalist. I'd take a look in the mirror before throwing the word racist around. Your prejudice against the Free Church of Scotland is clear from the thread.
Just as an aside, BruceWee's link about the 'authority of husbands' comes from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Kate Forbes is a member of the Free Church of Scotland which is a different denomination and, ironically, seceded from the CofS over the issue of the separation between church and state. As someone who studied theology in the dim and distant past, there are a number of questions it would be interesting to ask Kate Forbes around this issue, but spurious pish about 'headship', based around incoherent arguments about the meaning of the Greek word 'kephale', probably wouldn't feature on the list.
Allegedly her main goal since this all came up is to hang on until the next general election as that’d be when she qualifies for an MP’s pension.
Ah OK, if that's well known I can imagine people will want her out.
But there’s a list of people who said it DID affect his ability to vote on a contentious issue.
I'd imagine there are. But what exactly has HE said?
If you don't want to be told what you're saying is racist stop saying he must be a fundamentalist because he is Muslim.
Just because racists are saying something doesn't mean you have to repeat it as fact. We've already had someone posting links from racists (although unintentionally) about him on the previous page.
Just as an aside, BruceWee’s link about the ‘authority of husbands’ comes from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
Oops. Although in my defense, Presbyterians seem to be worse than Socialists for splitting.
Can you give us the crib notes on whether they are better, worse, or about the same when compared to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland?
poly
Free MemberBut there’s a list of people who said it DID affect his ability to vote on a contentious issue.
Presuming you mean missing the vote on gay marriage? It's been done I think, but he did vote for it in the first reading, he vocally supported it in campaigning, and in the end missed a vote where the final outcome was absolutely certain- it went 105:18 aye so his presence wasn't needed. And the fact that this is the best people could come up with, from 9 years ago, tells a story too. You have to want it to be true.
The key thing is that when challenged, he says he will not allow his "personal faith to be the basis of legislation", plain and simple. He can point to a much better track record for that than his critics can against, including the recent gender bill.
Whereas Forbes comes out with absolute word salad, and also says she can't see any issue with a potential SNP leader refusing to challenge the UK government's blocking of Scotland's democratically passed gender reforms. It's incomparable. "I'm not a dictator" but when my party and my parliament vote in favour of something and westminster blocks it I'll let it pass, even though it's also a great opportunity to score political points for independence, with no downsides. That's "I will not lead where my party and my voters want to go"
Frankly it's mostly like Tim Farron, it's not just the position she'd take, it's how she fudged talking about it. If she'd managed a coherent response like, say, "Personally I don't believe in it but that's just my personal opinion, as leader it's my job to represent my party" or something, rather than... christ almighty... "I think we get into very dangerous territory when we say that certain public offices are barred to certain minority groups.", trying to make herself as a poor oppressed christian victim.
If you don’t want to be told what you’re saying is racist stop saying he must be a fundamentalist because he is Muslim.
If you find a single post I've ever made that said Humza was a fundamentalist I will apologise.
Can you give us the crib notes on whether they are better, worse, or about the same when compared to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland?
There's a wee diagram here - which shows the splits and mergers. Better/worse suggests you have a preconceived notion about good/bad - given you didn't even know which organisation you were labelling as fundamentalist, and you were asking who she needs to get permission from to work a Sunday, called them a cult etc, I'm not sure you are entering the debate with an open mind. You are the one with the prejudice.
FWIW I consider all religions to be fundamentally a bad idea. If it were up to me active participation in any religion would clearly show you to be too easily misled and exclude you from high office. Its not up to me, and despite TJ's claim that most people in Scotland are not religious the Census data disagrees (Its often misquoted because more people say no religion than any individual religion, but the total of all religions is still significantly greater than no-religion) so I guess its quite likely that our politicians will have some sort of religious beliefs for some time. I'm not sure it makes sense to think of some flavours or religion as being better/worse than others.
despite TJ’s claim that most people in Scotland are not religious the Census data disagrees (Its often misquoted because more people say no religion than any individual religion, but the total of all religions is still significantly greater than no-religion)
That includes all the folk who say CoS (or something else) despite not having been in one since a kid does it not? Actually practicing god botherers are a minority from stuff I have seen. Numbers have been changing as well.
If you find a single post I’ve ever made that said Humza was a fundamentalist I will apologise
Oh yeah, you weren't calling him a fundamentalist. You were just saying that there are people who suggest that he is a fundamentalist. Sort of like when Trump says, 'People are saying...'
Good job on the plausible deniability. No need to apologise, then.
You are the one with the prejudice.
Yep, I am 100% intolerant towards intolerant organisations. And Kate Forbes is a member of an intolerant organisation and she has said that the views of her intolerant organisation are going to affect her decisions as FM.
Yousaf, on the other hand, has gone out of his way to stress that his membership of an intolerant organisation is not going to affect his decisions as FM, to the point where leaders of his intolerant organisation said they weren't supporting him and they actually preferred Kate Forbes (can't think why, can you?).
Anyway, yes, there are religions that are better and worse. The link I posted was clearly to one of the worse ones.
The Free Church of Scotland doesn't seem as bad in comparison, no?
Presuming you mean missing the vote on gay marriage? It’s been done I think, but he did vote for it in the first reading, he vocally supported it in campaigning, and in the end missed a vote where the final outcome was absolutely certain- it went 105:18 aye so his presence wasn’t needed. And the fact that this is the best people could come up with, from 9 years ago, tells a story too. You have to want it to be true.
That was pretty much my initial reaction. BUT some of those reports said he was "told" not to go to the vote by the Mosque. I don't know if they are true, but if you are an MSP and told / strongly hinted at / nudged by your religious leaders not to do something that is a problem for me.
The key thing is that when challenged, he says he will not allow his “personal faith to be the basis of legislation”, plain and simple. He can point to a much better track record for that than his critics can against, including the recent gender bill.
I agree his backing of the GRR is a sign he's got some independent thought (although I don't actually know what Islam's interpretation of the Bill is)
Whereas Forbes comes out with absolute word salad, and also says she can’t see any issue with a potential SNP leader refusing to challenge the UK government’s blocking of Scotland’s democratically passed gender reforms. It’s incomparable. “I’m not a dictator” but when my party and my parliament vote in favour of something and westminster blocks it I’ll let it pass, even though it’s also a great opportunity to score political points for independence, with no downsides. That’s “I will not lead where my party and my voters want to go”
I don't think you have to be religious to have hesitations about the GRR though! Its only a good opportunity to score points if you think you'll win. Alternatively, it would be an opportunity for her to show that "fighting" Westminster doesn't need to be about court cases, point scoring, and speeches to those who already want Indy, but could be about finding conciliation and working through fine details to get a bill both sides were happy with - skills which would inevitably be useful in an independence settlement. Humza will go fight them on this and all sides Indy/Union GRR/no-GRR will simply end up more entrenched in their views.
Frankly it’s mostly like Tim Farron, it’s not just the position she’d take, it’s how she fudged talking about it. If she’d managed a coherent response like, say, “Personally I don’t believe in it but that’s just my personal opinion, as leader it’s my job to represent my party” or something, rather than… christ almighty… “I think we get into very dangerous territory when we say that certain public offices are barred to certain minority groups.”, trying to make herself as a poor oppressed christian victim.
Yeah I think I said something similar up there - she lost it on this, and her inability to communicate it in a way that people who aren't as religious as she is could understand. Her interviews on this stuff felt like I was watching some Sunday morning spiritual TV waffle not debating the leader of a country. I'm not upset that she didn't get elected, I'm upset that in a country of 5 million people the best we could do was those three - and don't get me wrong the leaders of the opposition are no better.
That was pretty much my initial reaction. BUT some of those reports said he was “told” not to go to the vote by the Mosque. I don’t know if they are true, but if you are an MSP and told / strongly hinted at / nudged by your religious leaders not to do something that is a problem for me.
And yet Muslim leaders in Scotland chose NOT to support the potential first ever Muslim FM and instead praised his Christian rival. And it's still not good enough for you?
I said earlier, it wouldn't surprise me if Yousaf was worried about losing the support of the Muslim community at that point and took the political (not faith based) decision to miss the vote.
At the time I'd imagine losing the support of the Muslim community could well have meant the end of his political career and we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
Plenty Christian politicians go to church but you wouldn't necessarily describe them as 'religious'. Their religion doesn't define them. It seems that Muslims aren't given the same benefit of the doubt.
I’m upset that in a country of 5 million people the best we could do was those three – and don’t get me wrong the leaders of the opposition are no better.
Indeed. But the UK has 10 times the populus and it came up with....Liz Truss!
In a post Sturgeon era, Sarwar would be for me the best of the rest. In fact labour would feel the right choice if it was not for independence. If Scottish Labour could find a way to be less categorical on that issue a think a lot of SNP voters could find themselves floating that way.
In a post Sturgeon era, Sarwar would be for me the best of the rest. In fact labour would feel the right choice if it was not for independence. If Scottish Labour could find a way to be less categorical on that issue a think a lot of SNP voters could find themselves floating that way.
What I'd really like to see is Scottish Labour break from Westminster.
From there I think they should lay out a clear plan for complete UK constitutional reform.
Then they say, 'Unless these reforms are enacted, we will begin campaigning for and legislating for Independence.'
This, 'Union no matter what' and subservience to WM is not doing them (or us) any good. I think showing that they are not wedded to either the Union or indy but willing to act in Scotland's best interests no matter what could be a vote winner.
I’d imagine there are. But what exactly has HE said?
What people do is generally more interesting than what they say.
For example Johnson claimed he would die in a ditch rather than support the heathrow expansion but when it came time to vote found he had urgent business elsewhere.
Interesting reading above but…….Shona Robison as finance secretary???, and losing Ivan McKee who had actual engineering/business experience is just bloody stupid and vindictive.
I’m not sure it makes sense to think of some flavours or religion as being better/worse than others.
I dunno, man, I think I'd rather live under the modern Church of Scotland than under, say, Haredi Judaism, Wahhabi Islam, or the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.
One question you might like to ask to judge the goodness/badness of religions is "how enthusiastic would the adherents of this religion be about the execution of consenting adults for their sexual practices?". I think that would very quickly lead you to a rough league table of how good or bad some flavours of religion are.
but willing to act in Scotland’s best interests no matter what
This is starting from a nationalist premise - that the primary unit of identification and loyalty is the nation. That has never been the core belief of the labour (small L) movement. If they believed that, they'd be nationalists. If they believed that independence were the best tool for achieving their core beliefs, they'd be republicans already!
But Scottish independence now, after Brexit, just promises Brexit on steroids, at great harm to ordinary people and workers. You'd be mad to support it.
poly
Free Memberdespite TJ’s claim that most people in Scotland are not religious the Census data disagrees (Its often misquoted because more people say no religion than any individual religion, but the total of all religions is still significantly greater than no-religion)
So there's 2 really important things about that. The first is that the census question is a leading question, "what is your religion". If you ask "are you religious" followed by "which religion" you get a much lower response than "what is your religion" followed by "which religion".
The ONS agree with this- they agree that it means it's not an accurate count of religious opinion, and that they wouldn't word it that way now. However they don't change it because that would prevent comparative statwork, which is their priority- you can compare today's skewed answer with the last census's skewed answer, and get useful information on trends, but if they change it, it takes 50 years before they can do that again.
2)The census responses don't survive sanity-check answers. If you follow "what is your religion" with these you find that, frinstance, while 70% of people respond positively to the "what is your religion" question (including all the jedi btw), only 30% respond positively to "are you religious"s . A minority of people who identified themselves as christian said that they believed christ was the son of god, and similiarly only 25% of people who answered that they had a religion said that they believe in a god. These are massive contradictions.
it's really interesting tbh, a fun mix of human contradiction and identity, language bias, unintuitive stats and how to use them, and the value of comparative vs correct, just the sort of absolute pudding I like. No I do not get invited to many parties, why do you ask?
poly
Free MemberThat was pretty much my initial reaction. BUT some of those reports said he was “told” not to go to the vote by the Mosque.
And as far as I've seen, that's all completely unsubstantiated and from people who have taken a side, no?
Considering that he's vocally pro-equality, strongly supported the LGBTQ+ protections in the hate crime bill when he didn't have to (saying it's equally important as racial protections, which he absolutely didn't have to), and supported and voted for the GRR, I think it's pretty fair to doubt such a claim. The idea that the mosque had the power to compel him like that and yet only did it that once just seems improbable- but for sure, if it were true in 2014 that they had that influence over him, it doesn't seem to have been true since.
But Scottish independence now, after Brexit, just promises Brexit on steroids, at great harm to ordinary people and workers. You’d be mad to support it.
Oh dear. Its really not you know
And as far as I’ve seen, that’s all completely unsubstantiated and from people who have taken a side, no?
That's true, but I can also see that there's a good chance it has a grain of truth to it, especially given the fact that Muslim leaders refused to support him and instead praised Forbes.
In 2014 he had one election under his belt and probably felt he was reliant on the Muslim community for a significant chunk of his support. Much as we like to pretend Glasgow is a haven of enlightened values, I think we know that someone of ****stani origin is going to face different challenges to a white person.
I can definitely imagine Muslim leaders saying, 'If you vote for this, we are going to pull support' at which point Yousaf's political career could very well have been over.
As you said, there is no evidence this is what actually happened and it could be exactly as Yousaf has said (although he couldn't admit any pressure from Muslim leaders whatsoever because in 'enlightened' Scotland that would have been the end of his FM campaign).
Whatever happened, there is absolutely no evidence his faith influenced his actions. If there was pressure it was purely political pressure and not a 'crisis of faith'.
It is absolutely false equivalence to say that this is anything like Kate Forbes. Politicians come under pressure from groups they rely on for support all the time. It's literally part of the job. Sometimes that pressure can be ignored, sometimes it can't.
And there is no chance of it happening again since 'the mosque' has shown it no longer supports him. It has no more pressure to exert.
I'm sure we can all think to ourselves, 'I would have just told the mosque where to go and to hell with the consequences' but we can say that from our nice white middle class perspectives.
there’s a good chance it has a grain of truth to it, especially given the fact that Muslim leaders refused to support him...probably felt he was reliant on the Muslim community...I think we know...I can definitely imagine Muslim leaders...could very well have been over.
As you said, there is no evidence...
Come off it, mate. This is all just speculation. You're imagining "the Muslim community" as if it is one electoral bloc, and "the Mosque" as if it were a single institution with a leader that can impose a party line.
What people do is generally more interesting than what they say.
Exactly. If everyone assumes he's yet another lying politician (he doesn't have a great reputation for being above it all) then what he says is irrelevant, what he does matters. Whether it was because of HIS faith or because he was playing politics with supporters he allowed himself not to be at a landmark vote. If he hasn't learned by now that in politics perception is everything then he's going to struggle as leader.
Plenty Christian politicians go to church but you wouldn’t necessarily describe them as ‘religious’. Their religion doesn’t define them. It seems that Muslims aren’t given the same benefit of the doubt.
I 100% would describe a person that goes to church as religious. In fact, as Northwind points out the question of someone's religion is a leading question, but a good measure of how religious someone is would be how often they take part in collective worship.
@Northwind - by the way I agree with you the question is wrong, and church attendances certainly support the argument that most people are not religious at least in an active, participatory, sense. I'm sure that religious groups will have influenced the wording of the question. BUT most people saying that the country is not religious are either doing it with no evidence or misremembering the census. Obviously, the question if we are genuinely non-religious would be why religion is enshrined in our schools through the Education (Scoltand) Act etc.
Indeed. But the UK has 10 times the populus and it came up with….Liz Truss!
A good point. We should perhaps be asking how we get good people into relevant positions rather than squabbling over which of the religions is worst.
In a post Sturgeon era, Sarwar would be for me the best of the rest. In fact labour would feel the right choice if it was not for independence.
Yes, but he hasn't really done much to be noticed as a leader in Scotland? Amazingly Douglas Ross is more memorable than Sarwar in parliament and I bet a straw poll of the ordinary scottish public would show less than half knew who the Scottish Labour leader was (the rest of his front bench are even more anonymous).
If Scottish Labour could find a way to be less categorical on that issue a think a lot of SNP voters could find themselves floating that way.
Yes - its seems odd that the only way Scottish Labour seem to have a hope of getting back to power is if independence happens and they oppose it so strongly. I'm pretty sure that is "we hate the SNP, we must be different from them" and "we must not give staunch unionsts an excuse to vote tory" rather than every member of Scottish Labour being convinced that Indy is definitely bad. If I were on the Labour strategy team I'd be trying to distance myself from UK labour and would probably be saying something like, "We don't think Indy is the best solution for Scotland but we believe democracy is the best way to determine that and will support a referendum." You immediately pull the rug from under the SNP and their "the only way to Indy is to vote SNP" argument and force them to justify voting SNP on the rest of their policy. I'm even more amazed that the Lib Dems haven't done this, or at least said they would support a 3-way question.
Whatever happened, there is absolutely no evidence his faith influenced his actions. If there was pressure it was purely political pressure and not a ‘crisis of faith’.
I think you may have a fair point there. Although I find it uncomfortable that faith groups have access to influence politicians at all, there is a distinction between political influence and personal faith. Thank you for drawing out that distinction.
It is absolutely false equivalence to say that this is anything like Kate Forbes. Politicians come under pressure from groups they rely on for support all the time. It’s literally part of the job. Sometimes that pressure can be ignored, sometimes it can’t.
I agree - he (may have) actually dodged a vote whereas she was only asked about the hypothetical situation if she had been in parliament at the time. Drawing parallels is odd. I listed to Kate's interviews and didn't come away with the impression that her personal faith would have any real impact on the politics of the party. I may be wrong. It would actually have been far more interesting to ask all the candidates their views on political lobbying by faith groups. Given that was Kate's entry into politics that might have been a much harder issue for her to answer rather than worrying about why she goes to the closest church rather than the one she was brought up in (both the idea of proximity and the idea you should follow your parents is odd).
And there is no chance of it happening again since ‘the mosque’ has shown it no longer supports him. It has no more pressure to exert.
Politically yes. If he still goes to the mosque (I think he does) then there are quiet conversations in secretive places, just as there are in churches, golf clubs, etc.
I’m sure we can all think to ourselves, ‘I would have just told the mosque where to go and to hell with the consequences’ but we can say that from our nice white middle class perspectives.
Lets not pretend that Humza is anything other than middle class (as is Arwar). Both come from privileged backgrounds, went to (the same) private school etc. Certainly, he'll have faced racism throughout his life, I grew up walking distance from his school I have no doubt about that., But he's going to have a whole load more people putting a whole load more pressure on him now to do what they want or they'll pull his support than he has ever faced - so if he's weak that is not a good sign.
I’m not sure it makes sense to think of some flavours or religion as being better/worse than others.
I dunno, man, I think I’d rather live under the modern Church of Scotland than under, say, Haredi Judaism, Wahhabi Islam, or the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.
I'm not sure - yes obviously there are some religions which on the face of it seem like they are worse, but I'm genuinely not sure that the modern Church of Scotland or Catholic Church (the two biggest and presumably least controversial churches in Scotland) are as harmless as is implied by saying there are good/bad religions. Fundamentally the bitterness between the followers of those churches is one of Scotland's biggest problems. Outwardly those churches all play nice together these days, but you don't brew generations of hatred without leadership helping to foster it. Those "softer" religions have done far more harm to the people of Scotland in the last 100 years than any "Fundamentalist" religion whether Islamic, Jewish or Christian.
Come off it, mate. This is all just speculation. You’re imagining “the Muslim community” as if it is one electoral bloc, and “the Mosque” as if it were a single institution with a leader that can impose a party line.
I'm pretty sure I explicitly said this is all just speculation or words to that effect. It's impossible to prove a negative so this allegation is never going to go away.
My main point was it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. It is completely irrelevant and is in no way comparable to Kate Forbes, no matter how much people are trying to force this issue into the same box.
Anyway, are you talking about this from experience, being a Glasgow Muslim yourself, or are you a middle-aged white guy like me looking at it from the outside and speculating just how tight-knit the Glasgow Muslim community is and how much it looks towards the imams and leaders?
Because you sound very very sure of yourself.
Anyway, in other news, I may be guilty of posting more bollocks in the shape of the story I posted about Muslim leaders rejecting Yousaf. I had a look into the Scottish Association of Mosques and it looks like it may have been created exclusively to make that statement, similar to the Muslim Council of UK but with no one seemingly questioning whether they actually exist or not.
Thanks for the top rate journalism, Herald!
Meanwhile, the house of lairds at Westmonster still has several bishops from the CofE occupying their wholly undemocratic seats.
That makes any perceived influence at Holyrood of the Wee Frees, established Islamic faith groups or anyone else in Scotland pale into insignificance. Including the broad church of STW.
this allegation is never going to go away.
Well, especially not if people keep repeating it even when they admit it is "bollocks"!
Well, especially not if people keep repeating it even when they admit it is “bollocks”!
OK, so when someone brings it up is the correct response:
'It's bollocks.'
'But Alex Salmond said...'
'I don't care, it's still bollocks.'
or is it:
'It's bollocks. And because I can't prove a negative, even if it isn't bollocks, this is why it's still bollocks...'
Religious arguments aside, I seen somebody describe Humza as a classic example of failing upwards.
I know two people who met him during his time as transport minister, and both described him as being disinterested in what he was meeting the people for. One said he was only interested in the photo opportunity and making a show for PR purposes, and the other to say he'd met with local businesses. The latter said he blatantly didn't understand what he was talking about beyond mentioning soundbites, and showed zero interest in actually learning about or understanding the issues being faced.
In comparison the latter also got a visit from one of the shadow ministers, and despite being powerless to do anything, they had some understanding of the industry, and were actually interested in having a discussion about the issues being faced.
I've met politicians, they can appear to care, or not, same thing will happen in either case, they will leave it to their staff, office and civil servants to do the actual work, they are figureheads, people who can talk the talk, same as any big business, the boardroom tends to be filled with people who know little of what makes their business actually work outside of a powerpoint presentation.
BBC News - Sturgeon's husband arrested in SNP finance probe
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65187823
****. I wonder if she knew this was coming and hence the timing of the resignation.
Peter Murrell, aka Mr Sturgeon, arrested by police investigating SNP finances.
Oops!
Well Mr Sturgeon has been arrested.
She knew this was coming and resigned well ahead.
Oh aye.
Interesting that this comes about after the leadership election 🤔
The leadership election where they changed the rules to shorten the campaign.
Nothing fishy at all.
Obviously Sturgeon quit because her husband being arrested was on the cards.
But what's fishy (!), irc? Which candidate does it help or harm?
and resigned well ahead.
Humza became SNP leader 8 days ago. It feels a bit close to me!
She knew this was coming and resigned well ahead.
Some of us were pointing the finger at this on page 1 of this thread.
I don't know what kind of pull she/the SNP would have with Police Scotland to influence timings, but I can't blame people for being suspicious.
Private Eye have been going on about these transactions for months. I thought they sounded like fairly normal political shenannigans, albeit quite messy.
Slightly surprised that what has allegedly gone on must amount to criminal activity given that he's now been arrested.
Slightly surprised that what has allegedly gone on must amount to criminal activity given that he’s now been arrested.
I don’t think an arrest means there is criminal activity. It means they want to ask him questions as a potential suspect with the appropriate legal safeguards (rather than as a witness). If it reaches charge (it might - it might not) then that indicates that the police/PF believe there is a case to answer.
if I was a fan of the murrell mafia I’d be saying “the police have to do this to appear to have not had political bias and show the new FM is not controlling them”.
If I was a murrell hating unionist I’d be saying “see no smoke without fire, we told you all along they were dodgy”
I thought they sounded like fairly normal political shenannigans, albeit quite messy.
The allegation is that they raised money for the referendum campaign, and then used it to pay for normal party expenses. Remember that normal party expenses included Sturgeon's husband's salary and expenses, and repaying an "unusual" undeclared loan by Mr Sturgeon to the party. If the allegation is correct, it's not just fraud for the benefit of the party, it's fraud that had personal benefit for Mr Sturgeon...and his wife...?
But what’s fishy (!), irc? Which candidate does it help or harm?
I would’ve thought it helps the ‘continuity’ candidate most associated with Sturgeon & the party hierarchy?
Humsa was the establishment candidate. A short campaign meant it was done and dusted before now. This news would have favoured the other candidates.
Hence it was a lucky coincidence that the campaign rules were changed to shorten it.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-shame-of-scotlands-snp-leadership-contest/
Interesting that this comes about after the leadership election 🤔
not really - imagine if you were investigating this and wanted to arrest Peter Murrell a month ago, in the midst of the campaign, the membership numbers arguments etc. it could look like you were trying to interfere with the election. Waiting a few weeks on a years long case does no harm and removes allegations you are trying to influence who the future FM is.
it’s also possible that it’s been accelerated after the new acting CEO has come in because either he’s found stuff he passed on or because he wants the issue put to bed so they can get on with sorting the mess out.
of course it’s possible sturgeon knew it was coming - either because her husband said, look some shit might be about to fall out, or because the police had a polite word in her ear. That might have affected her timing, but I doubt it caused her resignation.
Waiting a few weeks on a years long case does no harm and removes allegations you are trying to influence who the future FM is.
But by not acting you are influencing the result of the election. It’s a potential criminal act by a politician, therefore it is always going to have an effect on politics. I take the view the police should ignore the political consequences & go through the process as they normally would.
That might have affected her timing, but I doubt it caused her resignation.
Yeah right - Mrs "I won't quit until I achieve independence" suddenly quits!
Private Eye have been going on about these transactions for months. I thought they sounded like fairly normal political shenannigans, albeit quite messy.
Yeah, the new angle today (apart from the arrest) was the mention of a vehicle being purchased, which I notice has now been removed from the BBC report.
Makes you think, etc.
I'm surprised TJ hasn't appeared yet to compare her with Christ 🙂
Blimey! There’s an incident tent in the Sturgeon’s front garden. Have they buried something under the lawn?
@avdave2 you have the wrong man, TJ isn't an SNP fan.
It’s a potential criminal act by a politician
Which politician would that be? AFAIK no politicians have been linked to the investigation so far. It's an important distinction (however minor).
What are the chances that Sturgeon is holed up in a Highland Bothy right now with a bottle of whiskey and a rucksack full of dehydrated food? 😀
Have they buried something under the lawn?
Does seem odd. I guess maybe so they can package stuff up/load directly into a van to make it harder for people to see exactly whats being carted out?
Yeah, the new angle today (apart from the arrest) was the mention of a vehicle being purchased,
Private Eye mentioned that in the last issue. Reference in their last accounts to ~80k on motor vehicles.
probably the dream of independence….
😆
Money+Politician=Corruption.
What are the chances that Sturgeon is holed up in a Highland Bothy right now with a bottle of whiskey and a rucksack full of dehydrated food?
Was recently seen learning to drive. Gearing up for a fast getaway. So you could be right.
with a bottle of whiskey
I doubt it'd be whiskey. Whisky on the other hand.....
[img] 
[/img]
Curiouser and curiouser.
All smells a bit fishy
But by not acting you are influencing the result of the election. It’s a potential criminal act by a politician, therefore it is always going to have an effect on politics. I take the view the police should ignore the political consequences & go through the process as they normally would.
No idea if there's official rules involved with either scenario but I guess it's similair to the partygate investigations last year where the met police didn't announce any updates until after the local elections: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/21/met-police-delay-updates-on-partygate-fines-until-after-may-local-elections
Not defending it though - definitely seems some fishy timing!
Minor point here Peter Murrell isnt a politician. A few people above have referred to him as such.