ICTChris Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kate-forbes-most-popular-candidate-29296053 I always think polls like these are pretty unreliable but it’s interesting nonetheless. Forward to the Free Church Theocracy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orfc Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 2 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: I’m always interested in what anyone has to say, including orfc. Always best to play the ball instead of “othering” the man. I can tell he's upset, no laughing emoji 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 2 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: I’m always interested in what anyone has to say, including orfc. Always best to play the ball instead of “othering” the man. Absolutely fascinating stuff there. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 Quick quiz, no googling. A Charles to the winner. Which of these are qualifying beliefs under The Equality Act ? 1. Support for a specific political party 2. Vegetarianism 3. That mediums can communicate with the dead 4. A belief in Climate Change 5. A belief in ethical veganism 6. A belief in national independence 7. A belief that 9/11 was a 'false flag' operation 8. A belief that lying is always wrong 9. A fear of catching covid 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 Wonder if there are a bunch of stoners writing a book somewhere that will be used to defend badger slapping in 4023. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Donathan said: Daily Record reporting up to six SNP MSPs will refuse to vote for Forbes as FM even if she wins the leadership contest This sounds like American style pish, i haven't really got an opinion on Forbes or her views. Let people vote for her or not and see where we get. Are we going to start declaring elected people unfit for office based on views they may or may not hold but probably won't make laws with? that doesn't sound too clever in a free democracy to me. If you can't tolerate those with different opinions to you then you're no better than those you're criticizing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 3 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said: This sounds like American style pish, i haven't really got an opinion on Forbes or her views. Let people vote for her or not and see where we get. Are we going to start declaring elected people unfit for office based on views they may or may not hold but probably won't make laws with? that doesn't sound too clever in a free democracy to me. If you can't tolerate those with different opinions to you then you're no better than those you're criticizing. Is not voting for someone declaring someone unfit for office? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 Just now, sparky88 said: Is not voting for someone declaring someone unfit for office? It's more the fesuing to endorse one who has won the ballot amongst the members. that's a bit trumpy for me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 3 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said: It's more the fesuing to endorse one who has won the ballot amongst the members. that's a bit trumpy for me If they called it a matter of conscience would it be OK? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarHibee Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 3 minutes ago, sparky88 said: Is not voting for someone declaring someone unfit for office? No. If you can only vote for one person, then it can't automatically be assumed that you think the remaining candidates that you don't vote for are unfit for office 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotiaNostra Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 The debates will be great Im sure 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 6 minutes ago, Iain said: If they called it a matter of conscience would it be OK? Honestly, I don't know. I think it's a bit unfair to paint her as some kind of monster. If were being honest there's a lot of faux outrage from people over her views. Not everyone is going to have liberal mided views on all the issues of the day, I think we need to accept that. there has been nothing to indicate that she will take a hard line puritanical view on any social matter or that she will even have the power to do so even as FM. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 (edited) 12 hours ago, orfc said: Argue it out with the Equality and Human Rights Commission if you must my good fellow https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics#rob "a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition." That would seem to fit Kate's circumstances, so if you don't vote for her now you are no better than a transphobe Apart from the obvious fact that nothing in the Equalities Act requires you to vote for anyone, holding protected characteristics doesn't give you a carte blanche. Quote Restrictions are allowed on an individual’s right to manifest their religion, as long as these restrictions are proportionate. Where the manifestation has an impact on the rights of others, then any restriction must be proportionate in order to respect the rights of others. Examples of this process can be seen in the discussion above of proselytisation and harassment. For example, as was seen in the discussion of harassment, speech regarding religious attitudes to LGB people may be viewed as harassment, and such speech may be restricted at work. In such cases, freedom to debate religious doctrine will need to be balanced against the need to protect the dignity of other workers. Cases such as Apelogun Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth and Haye v London Borough of Lewisham discussed above demonstrate that the need to protect freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression will not provide a defence to a claim of harassment. Moreover, in two Employment Tribunal cases, Mbuyi v Newpark Childcare and Wasteney v East London NHS Foundation Trust, it was decided that that disciplinary action by an employer against an employee who expressed negative views towards LGB people in conversation with colleagues did not amount to harassment. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research-report-97-review-of-equality-and-human-rights-law-relating-to-religion-or-belief.pdf Edited February 24, 2023 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotiaNostra Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 Does Yousaf have the same view as Forbes on same sex marriage but the difference is that he has said he wouldnt vote against it? Theres seems to be some reporting as such but I havent read anything that would clearly state that? Has he been asked? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 5 minutes ago, ScotiaNostra said: Does Yousaf have the same view as Forbes on same sex marriage but the difference is that he has said he wouldnt vote against it? Theres seems to be some reporting as such but I havent read anything that would clearly state that? Has he been asked? He has been asked and has said he supports it as his rights are interdependent on others' rights. “I believe that my rights don’t exist in a vacuum. If I want to advance my rights, want to advance other people’s rights, they are interdependent on each other. “I have no problem saying to you, unequivocally, as I did in 2014, that I support equality for all.” https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23341400.yousaf-denies-deliberately-skipping-gay-marriage-vote/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 (edited) Obviously the "aye but who are the real bigots here eh?" trope is done to death everywhere on the internet rather than just on P&B whenever someone puts their foot in it, as a load of people want to concern troll rather than explicitly admitting they agree with the original piece of bigotry. This is getting especially ridiculous though. What we're essentially dealing with here is the following. Politician: This is what I think about Issue X and here's my view on legislating about it Voter A - I disagree with this politician's view on Issue X and I feel strongly enough about this single issue that I'll never vote for this person Voter B - I disagree with this politician's view on Issue X and while I could disregard it in a local MSP, I wouldn't vote for them to run the country or a party Voter C - I disagree with this politician's view on Issue X and while this single issue alone isn't enough to stop me voting for them, combined with their views on Issues Y and Z I wouldn't vote for them Voter D - I disagree with this politician's view on Issue X and while it isn't going to stop me voting for them, I will challenge the view I disagree with. Then you have Voters E-Z covering a range of views from people who are undecided on Issue X, people who could not give the slightest shit about Issue X, right through to the people who vehemently agree with the politician on Issue X and would never vote for someone who disagrees, basically the polar opposite of Voter A. What we're being asked to believe here is that the only explanation for Voters A-D holding their stances is that they are intolerant and can't deal with any viewpoint differing to theirs, while Voters E-Z are the mature tolerant adults in the room. In reality these are simply the considerations taken into account by voters on a range of issues in literally every election which ever happens. If this was a Conservative leadership election and Issue X was taxation rates with the politician's stance being that there should a top rate of 98%, no one would be shocked at the intolerance of Voters A-D for disagreeing. If it was a Scottish Labour leadership election and the issue was supporting Scottish independence, no one would be shocked at the reaction of Voters A-D. If it was a Lib Dem election and the issue was Capital Punishment, etc. If it turns out enough SNP members disagree with Kate Forbes on various issues then she won't win the leadership election. This is simply how politics works. Edited February 24, 2023 by Dunning1874 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 On the Kate Forbes front, Tim Farron (of all people) put it well in Adam Boulton's article on Sky News today: "We Christians do not always help ourselves and can come across as judgemental and intolerant. I firmly believe that I have no right to legislate to make people who aren't Christians live their lives as though they were." If Forbes had started by saying something like that this whole thing wouldn't have blown up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 (edited) Peter Murrell on maneuvers with the six MSPs not voting for Kate Forbes? I don't understand why the party machine is so worried unless: 1) the membership aren't as progressive as the leadership maintain. and/or 2) the membership see Forbes views as a matter of conscience and would not affect her legislating. Interesting in any case. I expect it'll be Humza but the better strategy from the party would be to let Forbes continue to implode. Any attempt to influence the membership may well have the opposite effect. Edited February 24, 2023 by Trogdor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 The counter-reformation is on lads. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 4 minutes ago, Trogdor said: Peter Murrell on maneuvers with the six MSPs not voting for Kate Forbes? I don't understand why the party machine is so worried unless: 1) the membership aren't as progressive as the leadership maintain. and/or 2) the membership seehForbe's views as a matter of conscience and would not affect her legislating. Interesting in any case. I expect it'll be Humza but the better strategy from the party would be to let Forbes continue to implode. Any attempt to influence the membership may well have the opposite effect. I'm not sure the 'party machine' is anywhere near as well-oiled or effective as people would think. That's rarely the case with any party. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.