Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[spongeheid15]

[D Angelo Barksdale]

How do they know he's a doctor ? 

[Anonapersona]

20 minutes ago, spongeheid15 said:

The same Dr Gerald Edwards who said

Quote

Ms Sturgeon has failed to consider that the Brexit negotiations may well turn out very positive for the UK.

The guy obviously knows his stuff. Just not in this reality.

[sophia]

10 hours ago, NotThePars said:

If I ever luck out and end up in a Stalinist style grip of indy Scotland verbose faux-intellectuals are the first in the purge.

I had rather hoped for some considered guidance from those with an admirable insight on a very serious and for many, a new issue.

Whilst I have not been enlightened, I do seem to have been misunderstood as well as disappointed as all I have elicited in this instance is what reads like a death threat. 

 

[Granny Danger]

I see the homophobic Finance Secretary is getting coverage on a couple of MSM sites greeting about having to ‘hide’ her bigotry.

[Salt n Vinegar]

25 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I see the homophobic Finance Secretary is getting coverage on a couple of MSM sites greeting about having to ‘hide’ her bigotry.

To me, the important thing is not whether or not someone claims to be religious, it is the extent to which they expect anyone else to be affected by their beliefs.  It is just logical to say that "faith" can't be a path to truth, because so many people believe different and often contradictory things which cannot all be true.  If Forbes is capable of doing the job, that's fine by me. If I had my way, any effect on others of someone's religious views would be non-existent but I just have to accept that at the moment some need or want the comforts said to be available to those who are prepared to sacrifice their reason to the supernatural. 

For as long as "we" have religious influences in civic society, which we clearly do, these conflicts of opinion are bound to arise.  I'd rather there was no religious influence at all, but it is everywhere. Many folk swear to a god (rarely defined in any more detail than that) before giving evidence in court and we have an image of a unicorn in the court.  I have no idea if someone would be allowed to swear in the name of "Ra", "Zeus" or "Odin" to tell the truth, but it might be interesting if someone tried it. 

Although I didn't watch them all, I know that after the Scottish Parliament election some MSPs opted to swear an oath in the Chamber while others made an affirmation. 

We have a religiously dominated local authority state school system, with teachers in part of it having to receive the approval of a particular church before obtaining certain jobs and whose otherwise democratically elected local representatives can only consider education-related business at meetings to which religious representatives must be invited.  Even in the case of so called 'non-denominational' schools where no religious certificate is required, religious views must be represented on any sub committee making teaching appointments. In the third decade of the 21st century. 

We have a hereditary monarchy whose legitimacy is apparently based on the grace of a god, as we are reminded in an abbreviated form if we look at any British coin.  We (along with only Iran) reserve places in our legislature for mortals who are there for no other reason than they are high heid yins in a particular religion. 

Anyone who is surprised that we have "people of faith" involved in our governments hasn't been paying attention. 

Here endeth the rant. 

[BigDoddyKane]

Everyone believes in something even those who think they dont

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

To me, the important thing is not whether or not someone claims to be religious, it is the extent to which they expect anyone else to be affected by their beliefs.  It is just logical to say that "faith" can't be a path to truth, because so many people believe different and often contradictory things which cannot all be true.  If Forbes is capable of doing the job, that's fine by me. If I had my way, any effect on others of someone's religious views would be non-existent but I just have to accept that at the moment some need or want the comforts said to be available to those who are prepared to sacrifice their reason to the supernatural. 

For as long as "we" have religious influences in civic society, which we clearly do, these conflicts of opinion are bound to arise.  I'd rather there was no religious influence at all, but it is everywhere. Many folk swear to a god (rarely defined in any more detail than that) before giving evidence in court and we have an image of a unicorn in the court.  I have no idea if someone would be allowed to swear in the name of "Ra", "Zeus" or "Odin" to tell the truth, but it might be interesting if someone tried it. 

Although I didn't watch them all, I know that after the Scottish Parliament election some MSPs opted to swear an oath in the Chamber while others made an affirmation. 

We have a religiously dominated local authority state school system, with teachers in part of it having to receive the approval of a particular church before obtaining certain jobs and whose otherwise democratically elected local representatives can only consider education-related business at meetings to which religious representatives must be invited.  Even in the case of so called 'non-denominational' schools where no religious certificate is required, religious views must be represented on any sub committee making teaching appointments. In the third decade of the 21st century. 

We have a hereditary monarchy whose legitimacy is apparently based on the grace of a god, as we are reminded in an abbreviated form if we look at any British coin.  We (along with only Iran) reserve places in our legislature for mortals who are there for no other reason than they are high heid yins in a particular religion. 

Anyone who is surprised that we have "people of faith" involved in our governments hasn't been paying attention. 

Here endeth the rant. 

Part of her job is to create and promote a fair and inclusive society.  We’ll no doubt find out in the fullness of time whether her support for a backward looking sect is an impediment to her doing her job.

[Granny Danger]

2 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

Everyone believes in something even those who think they dont

“Banal shite posts” thread for this.*

 

 

* If said thread doesn’t exist this would certainly be an excellent opening post.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

3 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

Everyone believes in something even those who think they dont

I believe in bugs. I truly believe in bugs.

[BigDoddyKane]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

“Banal shite posts” thread for this.*

 

 

* If said thread doesn’t exist this would certainly be an excellent opening post.

ok  "mr raging" all the time

[BigDoddyKane]

4 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

I believe in bugs. I truly believe in bugs.

so im no the only one, magic

[spongeheid15]

A see the igronant dictator sturgeon has embarrassed her self again during prince William's visit. 

[Ira Gaines]

FLAP FLAP FLAP FLAP

[spongeheid15]

A see the igronant dictator sturgeon has embarrassed her self again during prince William's visit. 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Twice?

[spongeheid15]

Unfortunately he has at times to meet two faced unsavoury characters 

[sophia]

15 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

 

As far as I can make out the learned Dr is a Doctor of Zoology and an avid Rangers supporter.

Is that not pretty much the same thing?

[Ira Gaines]

Think this one is just shitting out their alphabet soup.

[Salt n Vinegar]

Without a source article it's hard to know what the embarrassment is supposed to be, but if it is over an unnecessary visit by someone else's 'betters' during a pandemic, linked with giving credence or publicity to a supernatural 'woo woo' festival, keep it up!