Next permanent Scotland manager

[Trogdor]

1 minute ago, Iain said:

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.

Well put by Tim Farron.

[Iain]

4 minutes ago, Bodie said:

The counter-reformation is on lads.

How do we hound Fraser Nelson out the door never to return? I would sign up for that.

[Trogdor]

1 minute ago, Iain said:

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.

For clarity I don't think the party machine is well oiled or effective at all. Hence my point that leaking stories to the press like that one having the opposite effect.

The catastrophically bald Murrell should exit stage left tbh.

[ScotiaNostra]

18 minutes ago, Iain said:

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/

Yes but what is his own personal belief, does he think same sex marriage is ok. 

 

Im just curious now as its been such story. I would want to know what his actual belief is on that topic, not if he supports equal right (which is good) but what does he actually think himself

Edited February 24, 2023 by ScotiaNostra

[ScotiaNostra]

18 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 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. 

The SNP is a "broad Church" if you can excuse the pun. So I think no one viewpoint dominates. The Party is probably split into 3 or even more groups

[Billy Jean King]

1 hour ago, orfc said:

That is genuinely getting close to a violation of the equality act. While internet gobshites like ourselves have no power, they do, and they're basically saying they'll assess and decide her suitability for a promoted role based on her protected chars. 

Wow, just wow. This has to be up there with the singular most stupid post ever.

 

Extrapolating your logic Forbes should get every single vote and every one she doesn't get is a breach of the equalities act.  The candidates put themselves up for election. All members are free to vote for any candidate and their reasons for voting that way are 100% up to them and totally irrelevant to anyone else.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Billy Jean King

[itzdrk]

10 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

As a Rangers supporter who also likes rugby, on a weekend when Rangers play Celtic in a cup final and Scotland play rugby against France in Paris, I'm not entirely sure that "we" are looking forward to this weekend as much as some might hope!  For Rangers and Scotland both to win, its 12/1 on Bet365. I'm not suggesting that the bookies always get it right, but I actually think 12/1 is a bit mean TBH. 

Do you like anything good?

[ICTChris]

The Daily Mail reporting that Alex Neil has claimed Humza Yousaf asked to miss the gay marriage vote because "he was under so much pressure from the mosque".  Joe Fitzpatrick, who was the minister for Parliamentary business at the time, says that isn't true.

[itzdrk]

2 hours ago, orfc said:

That is genuinely getting close to a violation of the equality act. While internet gobshites like ourselves have no power, they do, and they're basically saying they'll assess and decide her suitability for a promoted role based on her protected chars. 

This is such a dumb troll you are doing, you didn't even think it all the way through.  

[Salt n Vinegar]

8 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

Do you like anything good?

Malt whisky, reading, some films, Sci-fi, singing (no, NOT that weekly "orange" garbage ), learning Gaelic. How about you?

(for the avoidance of any doubt, I'm sure you're a very good person but I'm not asking you out on a date! ) 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Salt n Vinegar

[D Angelo Barksdale]

1 hour ago, Bodie said:

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 - No

2. Vegetarianism -No

3. That mediums can communicate with the dead - Yes

4. A belief in Climate Change -Yes

5. A belief in ethical veganism -Yes

6. A belief in national independence - Yes

7. A belief that 9/11 was a 'false flag' operation - No

8. A belief that lying is always wrong - Yes

9. A fear of catching covid - No

 

An hour and not a single response.

Quizzes on p&b are a deeply help belief, it's a key tenet of my faith being a member of the Roy Walker Evangelicals after their breakway from The Church of Magnus Magnusson during the great Multiple Choice Reformation. By not voting you're all guilty of a gross breach of the Equalities Act 2010.

The answers are above if any of you irredeemable bigots are interested.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Bodie

[welshbairn]

32 minutes ago, ScotiaNostra said:

Yes but what is his own personal belief, does he think same sex marriage is ok. 

 

Im just curious now as its been such story. I would want to know what his actual belief is on that topic, not if he supports equal right (which is good) but what does he actually think himself

Hard to know without direct access to his soul but I take him at his word that he thinks it's fine. He has to be a bit circumspect if he wants to keep in with his Mosque and Muslim community, like prominent Catholics can be when abortion comes up. You can be a deeply faithful member of a religion without believing in every nook and cranny, sometimes it helps not to make a song and dance about it of you think the good outweighs the bad.

Edited February 24, 2023 by welshbairn

[Trogdor]

16 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

The Daily Mail reporting that Alex Neil has claimed Humza Yousaf asked to miss the gay marriage vote because "he was under so much pressure from the mosque".  Joe Fitzpatrick, who was the minister for Parliamentary business at the time, says that isn't true.

A trifecta of incompetence right there.

[ScotiaNostra]

9 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Hard to know without direct access to his soul but I take him at his word that he thinks it's fine. He has to be a bit circumspect if he wants to keep in with his Mosque and Muslim community, like prominent Catholics can be when abortion comes up. You can be a deeply faithful member of a religion without believing in every nook and cranny, sometimes it helps not to make a song and dance about it of you think the good outweighs the bad.

Thats true, I would still be interested to know in this case though. As its become the topic so focused on that if they do actually both believe the same thing then it could be argued it should be known and let people decide. There is also another runner in the race. Then maybe we can finally move on to what is considered other important issues we want to hear their opinions on.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by ScotiaNostra

[Donathan]

The Equality Act stuff is nonsense but basing your preference for party leader on how someone would hypothetically have voted on a fringe issue that was sorted nearly a decade ago is absolutely bizarre IMO.
 

Independence and other issues should be far prominent for this campaign. 

[Iain]

There's no cause Alex Neil is more committed to than getting his mug in the papers.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, ScotiaNostra said:

The debates will be great Im sure

Hope they are better than the shite we've had to put up with on here...

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

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.

Is voter X allowed to have a view about himself being an issue?

[welshbairn]

21 minutes ago, ScotiaNostra said:

Thats true, I would still be interested to know in this case though. As its become the topic so focused on that if they do actually both believe the same thing then it could be argued it should be known and let people decide. Then maybe we can finally move on to what is considered other important issues we want to hear their opinions on.

 

The important thing is that Humza has always acted as if he believes in equal rights for gay people, all Forbes had to say was that she wasn't going to answer hypotheticals about a vote that occurred before she entered politics and she is fully supportive of the marriage law as it now stands. Humza only missed the final vote, he voted for it on every step leading up to it.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by welshbairn