Next permanent Scotland manager

[Iain]

24 minutes ago, virginton said:

Because Scotland in 2023 is analogous with Bible Belt America and you just can't move for Free Church evangelicals praisin' the Lord all around us.

A complete and utter nonsense argument. 

Religious zealots aren't the majority in those American states either. They just know how to accumulate power.

[vikingTON]

23 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

As others have already pointed out, you didnt ask which rights i thought Forbes would roll back, and neither did i suggest i feared she would. You specifically asked about which future hypotheticals i was concerned about. 

So what is the future hypothetical that involves the rolling back of rights? 

Quote

My point about westminster is  not 'all over the place', your comprehension apparently is. As things currently stand "westminster" refers to this tory government, which is not intetested in GRR regardless of how it is presented. I thought I was perfectly clear that I was talking about 2 years or so from now when the Tories are gone, Forbes is FM, that I do not expect her to have any appetite for submitting a GRR bill to a more accommodating Starmer government, even though its far less lilely to be blocked.

No, your argument that there's no chance of 'Westminster' accepting an amended bill is simply nonsense, because you've conceded that 'Westminster' will not be run by the same party within the lifetime of this Holyrood parliament. 

Forbes' argument is therefore coherent - although I incidentally agree that she probably won't pursue it. 

Quote

S35 does not cease to be in effect purely because the government that enacted it is removed, so i'm baffled as to how you have utterly mangled what was a pretty simple chain of events.

Next to nobody will care about a S35 order being placed on a dung bill that has wasted quite enough time and political capital on already. It's not a hill that any halfway-smart SNP leader should be dying on. 

[Boo Khaki]

6 minutes ago, virginton said:

So what is the future hypothetical that involves the rolling back of rights? 

Jesus suffering f**k. Why on earth are you repeatedly asking me to provide examples of a thing that I have specifically said I am not concerned about?

Perhaps it would help you if I quoted my original post that you edited down in the first place -

Quote

It's fine and well for Forbes to say she has no plans to roll back existing laws and remove existing rights, but what about future hypotheticals? If I had to put money on which of the two I believe is most likely to deliberately stand in the way of further legislation that expands the rights of minority groups, I know which of the two that would be.

For the umpteenth time, I have no concerns about Forbes rolling back rights either now or in the future. I do however, have concerns that she would be totally uninterested in enacting legislation that further enhances or offers new rights to minority groups. 

Is that clear?

Quote

No, your argument that there's no chance of 'Westminster' accepting an amended bill is simply nonsense, because you've conceded that 'Westminster' will not be run by the same party within the lifetime of this Holyrood parliament. 

Again, you seem to be completely oblivious to context.

Forbes current stated position is that she would seek to negotiate an amended GRR that the tories i.e. 'westminster' would approve before the end of this westminster government. That is an absolute nonsense because it is abundantly clear they will not accept any GRR bill that changes the status quo in any meaningful way, so it's dead in the water until such time legal action compels the Tories to drop the s35, or the Tories are removed from office and a GRR bill can be submitted to a more accommodating Labour government.

Forbes immediate position is not going to result in a Scots GRR bill being submitted for approval, and once that is yet again kyboshed by the Tories I have no faith that she, as FM, would resubmit it to a future Labour government.

The rest is clearly just personal opinion. As I've already stated, I'm wholly in approval of the GRR Bill, but even more important for me is that in order to have any credibility as a pro-independence FM, whoever wins this leadership election absolutely must challenge the s35. Regan and Forbes have no intention of doing that, which is why, especially in Forbes case, I can not take her seriously as a potential FM.

[Dunning1874]

14 hours ago, Trogdor said:

This.

I really don't understand why Humza would lie about something like this where he gains so little advantage. He has been the same way as minister tbh, a lack of political judgement.

If I had a vote I would spoil my ballot.

While Yousaf has certainly shown a lack of political judgement across his ministerial roles, the most credible explanation on this which makes his actions easy to understand is that he's the one telling the truth.

If a politician was seeking to avoid voting on an issue because they don't want to admit they oppose their party's stance, they want a pretext for abstaining rather than just saying they intend to do so or simply just want to hide an opinion they think will be electorally unpopular, that politician would not also vote in favour of the same bill at different stages and speak in favour of it literally every single time they're asked about it during the passage of the bill and in the nine years following it becoming law.

It is a completely incoherent attack, and incidentally there is a precisely 0% chance it would still be getting dragged up to target a white Christian candidate about two weeks after that candidate stated their unequivocal support for existing rights.

[Jacksgranda]

When's the next hustings And is it Lived Streamed, too?

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

Jesus suffering f**k. Why on earth are you repeatedly asking me to provide examples of a thing that I have specifically said I am not concerned about?

Perhaps it would help you if I quoted my original post that you edited down in the first place -

For the umpteenth time, I have no concerns about Forbes rolling back rights either now or in the future. I do however, have concerns that she would be totally uninterested in enacting legislation that further enhances or offers new rights to minority groups. 

Is that clear?

Not at all, because there's no concrete example of a scenario rights where Holyrood would actually be enhancing or offering new rights to minority groups. So your concern about a purely hypothetical rights issue seems (IMO) as relevant as having a concern about how the FM would deal with an invasion from outer space. 

At least we're not currently peddling the rollback bullshit - although others on the thread are insinuating exactly that without foundation. 

[Crùbag]

On 28/02/2023 at 19:17, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

I'd need to know more details about the vanity thing, but I doubt it was simple as you put it.  The Free Church wouldn't castigate someone merely for doing what you said.

The Lord Mackay thing wasn't the Free Church.  It was the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

It happened.

Will give you the Mackay thing but there is the problem - the sheer number of split churches. And, in the islands, maybe not so much in Dingwall where Forbes is from, you have each church clinging to the extremes. Even the 'established' Church of Scotland in the islands is not the cuddly auld teddy we may think it is in cosmopolitan Edinburgh. That said, the FC, even in Edinburgh still dishes out the hellfire to sinners.

As to Forbes though and her 'honesty' - why does she cherry pick her church's tenets? Specifically, she chooses to ignore her church's teachings on Catholics - the Anti-Christ - but not on gay marriage? And, would she be a Sabbatrian FM?

My issue isn't with her beliefs as much as they're not mine, it's about human rights and democracy. She can't put her beliefs into action as a lawmaker and claim to uphold human rights. I'd vote to allow the Wee Frees to have the freedom to worship, why can't she vote to allow gay people to marry?

This from Mhairi Black:

 

[Crùbag]

44 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

While Yousaf has certainly shown a lack of political judgement across his ministerial roles, the most credible explanation on this which makes his actions easy to understand is that he's the one telling the truth.

If a politician was seeking to avoid voting on an issue because they don't want to admit they oppose their party's stance, they want a pretext for abstaining rather than just saying they intend to do so or simply just want to hide an opinion they think will be electorally unpopular, that politician would not also vote in favour of the same bill at different stages and speak in favour of it literally every single time they're asked about it during the passage of the bill and in the nine years following it becoming law.

It is a completely incoherent attack, and incidentally there is a precisely 0% chance it would still be getting dragged up to target a white Christian candidate about two weeks after that candidate stated their unequivocal support for existing rights.

I believe that Humza Yousaf has been a long-time and active supporter of gay rights. I certainly read this online by people who've known him since Uni days. The same can't be said of Forbes. I have no god but it seems to me that 'moderate' Muslims - at  least in the political arena - are way more tolerant than the 'native' religious fringes of Scottish society, be it the various shades of Calvinism, the Orange Order or the Catholic Church.

[Boo Khaki]

20 minutes ago, virginton said:

Not at all, because there's no concrete example of a scenario rights where Holyrood would actually be enhancing or offering new rights to minority groups. So your concern about a purely hypothetical rights issue seems (IMO) as relevant as having a concern about how the FM would deal with an invasion from outer space. 

At least we're not currently peddling the rollback bullshit - although others on the thread are insinuating exactly that without foundation. 

Right, so because you can't immediately come up with a 'concrete example' yourself, concern about minority rights is on a par with concern about invasion from outer space.

Aside from the obvious ongoing issues of buffer zones and a GRR bill in limbo, how about what just happened at Westminster with the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022. Scotland is now alone in the UK as being the only place where it is still legal for 16 & 17 year olds to marry without parental consent. Strictly speaking, 16 & 17 year olds are not a recognised 'minority group', but this is exactly the sort of thing that, should DRoss and his cohort of dribbling idiots start making a noise about up here, I have no faith whatsoever that Forbes would have any interest in defending.

The point being, that just because you can not think of a concrete example yourself, that doesn't mean that across the length of Forbes' FM'ship there will not be scenario arising that nobody is currently thinking about. Tavistock is gone, rightfully in my opinion, and it's clear the same people who lead the crusade against that have it in for Sandyford. While I'm completely accepting that there are serious questions and concerns over how young people experiencing gender issues have been dealt with by the NHS, it's also clear that the Tories have no intention whatsoever of replacing Tavistock with the completely imaginary 'regional centres' they were waffling about. Should similar occur with Sandyford up here, there's no way that Forbes is going to be interested in replacing that either, leaving a whole load of young people with absolutely no recourse for treatment whatsoever. 

Quite simply, there is no need for specific examples anyway when it comes to Forbes, because it's purely a matter of trust, and given what we know about her I simply do not trust Forbes to act in the manner I would expect of any candidate asking me to back them as FM. Whatever the specifics of any potential hypotheticals arising, I'm confident that her views and her approach would doubtless be at odds with mine, hence why I can not back her.

[welshbairn]

38 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

When's the next hustings And is it Lived Streamed, too?

Should be on the link below at 6.30, haven't seen anything confirmed yet though. It's in Fife so not sure if they have the internet yet. I think BBC Scotland ended up showing the last one so it might be on the telly too.

https://www.youtube.com/@TheSnp/streams

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

51 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

It happened.

Will give you the Mackay thing but there is the problem - the sheer number of split churches. And, in the islands, maybe not so much in Dingwall where Forbes is from, you have each church clinging to the extremes. Even the 'established' Church of Scotland in the islands is not the cuddly auld teddy we may think it is in cosmopolitan Edinburgh. That said, the FC, even in Edinburgh still dishes out the hellfire to sinners.

As to Forbes though and her 'honesty' - why does she cherry pick her church's tenets? Specifically, she chooses to ignore her church's teachings on Catholics - the Anti-Christ - but not on gay marriage? And, would she be a Sabbatrian FM?

My issue isn't with her beliefs as much as they're not mine, it's about human rights and democracy. She can't put her beliefs into action as a lawmaker and claim to uphold human rights. I'd vote to allow the Wee Frees to have the freedom to worship, why can't she vote to allow gay people to marry?

This from Mhairi Black:

 

I agree about the splits being a problem - a serious one.

When you speak of dishing out hellfire to sinners, I don't agree at all.  What the Free Church tries it's best to do, is preach God's will via his word to those who attend.  The Free Church isn't dishing out hell to anyone, but giving it's interpretation of what it believes hell to be.

Hell is absolutely spoken of in the bible, but everyone has their own interpretation of what the text actually means.  My own belief, is that the gloriously hyperbolic language in the bible doesn't indicate a place with physical pain, torture and suffering, but is designed to let you know that you don't want to be there.  I see it as eternal separation from God.  What that even means is something I'm not sure of myself.

The Free Church goes by the Westminster Confession of Faith, so you can find it's official teachings there, but I know from experience that different FC ministers will even interpret the WCOF in different ways.  You don't have to agree with and follow every teaching to be a member either.

The FC doesn't have teachings on Roman Catholics (apart from loving your neighbour as yourself, which applies to all human beings) but teachings on it's theology, which is a completely different thing.  You could even argue that the term 'Protestant' is anti-Catholic by definition, given it's origins.  I'm sure former moderator of the FC David Robertson has even described RCs as our Christian brothers and sisters, and I agree with that.

I've never heard my minister preach on the Anti Christ so can't help you there.  I don't know what the FC's position is, but it'll be based on the bible.  Revelation is an incredibly difficult book to make sense of IMO!  Ironic, given it's name!  All it reveals to me is confusion and a sore head!

When I joined, I specifically asked about Sabbatarianism, and was told to observe Sundays as the Sabbath where no work should be done, other than works of necessity.  He stressed to me, that I didn't have to refuse to work on a Sunday if I had to.  I'm not sure if this was my minister's opinion or FC position.  I can't really comment on how Forbes sees the situation.

I think she absolutely can put her beliefs into practice as FM.  Holding beliefs and therefore putting them into practice in one's own life doesn't mean trying to force them on everyone else.  My personal take is that God tells us marriage is between one man and one woman, so I have no choice but to see it that way.  That doesn't mean I should try and force everyone else's marriages to fit that definition though.  It's obvious that she isn't going to try and re-open the gay marriage debate.

Put it this way, if we based all our laws on the bible, then we'd be prosecuting people for lying, adultery, using the Lord's name in vain, hating people, getting drunk and having impure thoughts!  Prisons are crammed enough as it is  

Anyway, sorry for the long-winded reply mate but I hope I covered everything.

Edited March 3, 2023 by CarrbridgeSaintee

[Trogdor]

2 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

While Yousaf has certainly shown a lack of political judgement across his ministerial roles, the most credible explanation on this which makes his actions easy to understand is that he's the one telling the truth.

If a politician was seeking to avoid voting on an issue because they don't want to admit they oppose their party's stance, they want a pretext for abstaining rather than just saying they intend to do so or simply just want to hide an opinion they think will be electorally unpopular, that politician would not also vote in favour of the same bill at different stages and speak in favour of it literally every single time they're asked about it during the passage of the bill and in the nine years following it becoming law.

It is a completely incoherent attack, and incidentally there is a precisely 0% chance it would still be getting dragged up to target a white Christian candidate about two weeks after that candidate stated their unequivocal support for existing rights.

Sorry but you'd have to ignore the facts to believe that. He said he had an immovable meeting with the Pakistani consulate. That has proven to be untrue. That was in fact a lie. This is like Would I Lie to You.

No one is suggesting he's against equal marriage. He simply preferred to duck the final vote. Why he hasn't been honest about that is baffling for me.

Incidentally, that was a free vote rather than a whipped one. Something the party as of late seems to have stopped doing.

It's also not an attack. He said something which was untrue. Pointing that out isn't an attack.

I get those who are reluctant Team Humza (I fail to believe anyone would be enthusiastic Humza) defending him but all candidates should be measured the same. On this matter he has erred. Pointing that out isn't an attack.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Trogdor

[vikingTON]

30 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

 

It is a completely incoherent attack, and incidentally there is a precisely 0% chance it would still be getting dragged up to target a white Christian candidate about two weeks after that candidate stated their unequivocal support for existing rights.

Utter horseshit - Catholic politicians to name just one category (race not relevant) have absolutely been hauled over the coals for their stance on abortion rights and gay marriage between competing interests. 

The reason why it's being used against Yousaf is because he chose to take the moral high ground and condemn Forbes for being a wrong 'un for not supporting a garbage bill. If you're going to throw stones in a leadership contest about 'moral' decision-making, you better not have ducked out of putting your own cards on the table - and produced a blustered excuse when called on it. 

The leadership battle shouldn't be focused on those issues but Yousaf is as much as responsible for that scrutiny as anyone else. 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

Right, so because you can't immediately come up with a 'concrete example' yourself, concern about minority rights is on a par with concern about invasion from outer space.

Aside from the obvious ongoing issues of buffer zones and a GRR bill in limbo, how about what just happened at Westminster with the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022. Scotland is now alone in the UK as being the only place where it is still legal for 16 & 17 year olds to marry without parental consent. Strictly speaking, 16 & 17 year olds are not a recognised 'minority group', but this is exactly the sort of thing that, should DRoss and his cohort of dribbling idiots start making a noise about up here, I have no faith whatsoever that Forbes would have any interest in defending.

I've asked you to give a concrete example of the rollback/refusal to extend minority rights that you're concerned about.

All three issues you've raised are either a) not a rollback of existing rights b) nothing to do with an extension of minority rights, and now c) don't involve minority rights at all. 

It's almost as if this Defence of Rights argument is concern trolling with nothing of substance to support it.  

Quote

Quite simply, there is no need for specific examples anyway when it comes to Forbes, because it's purely a matter of trust, and given what we know about her I simply do not trust Forbes to act in the manner I would expect of any candidate asking me to back them as FM. Whatever the specifics of any potential hypotheticals arising, I'm confident that her views and her approach would doubtless be at odds with mine, hence why I can not back her.

So why not just be honest and state you won't support her because you fundamentally disagree with her views and consider her a religious wrong 'un who isn't fit for leadership? There's no need to concoct a non-existent societal threat from Forbes to hold that point of view. 

[Dunning1874]

37 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

Sorry but you'd have to ignore the facts to believe that. He said he had an immovable meeting with the Pakistani consulate. That has proven to be untrue. That was in fact a lie. This is like Would I Lie to You.

Sorry, I've maybe missed something here; when was this was proven to be untrue? I thought the only evidence to the contrary was Salmond and Neil claiming otherwise as opposed to factual proof that he was instead fabricating reasons to duck out?

[alta-pete]

More trouble for Humza as his similarly puffed up Solicitor decides to intervene…

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23361949.yousafs-gay-marriage-vote-excuse-spotlight-lawyer-intervenes/
 

Spoiler

ousaf's gay marriage vote excuse under spotlight as lawyer intervenes

1 hr ago

 

By Tom Gordon@htscotpolPolitical Editor

8 Comments

Yousaf's gay marriage vote excuse under spotlight as lawyer intervenes (Image: PA)

 

 

 

HUMZA Yousaf is facing more questions about his missed vote on gay marriage after a statement from a lawyer apparently meant to help the SNP leadership hopeful backfired.

Aamer Anwar today revealed he put pressure on Mr Yousaf to intervene on behalf of the family of a mentally ill Scottish man sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy.

Mr Yousaf has repeatedly said he missed the gay marriage vote because he was talking to the Pakistan Consul General in Glasgow about the case of pensioner Mohammad Asghar.

However, Mr Anwar's statement revealed he did not make his approach until weeks after Mr Yousaf had already set up his meeting with the consul, undermining Mr Yousaf’s excuse.

Mr Yousaf set up the meeting on 16 January 2014, two days after being told to be in parliament for the gay marriage vote on February 4.

Mr Asghar was not sentenced to death until a week later, on January 23.

The UK Foreign Office minister Baroness Warsi issued a statement about it the following day, saying: “We will be raising our concerns in the strongest possible terms with the Pakistani government."

After Mr Yousaf met the Pakistan Consul General on the same day as the marriage vote, he suggested on Twitter the meeting had been unavoidable, despite setting it up 19 days in advance, and cited Mr Asghar's case.

“Meeting Pakistan Consul discussing Scot on death row accused under Blasphemy Law not one could/want avoid,” he tweeted on February 5 when asked to explain his absence.

Mr Yousaf has been challenged by both Alex Salmond and former cabinet minister Alex Neil over his account of why he missed the vote, raising questions about his credibility in the SNP leadership race.

READ MORE: Alex Salmond queries Humza Yousaf's gay marriage vote excuse

Although Mr Yousaf, then the minister for external affairs, backed the equal marriage bill’s general principles in November 2013, he was the only minister to miss its final stage vote.

Mr Neil, who is backing Kate Forbes for SNP leader, has claimed Mr Yousaf had set up the diary clash as “cover” in order to skip the vote, because of “pressure from the mosque”.

Because Mr Yousaf has suggested Ms Forbes's failure to support gay marriage makes her unsuitable to be SNP leader and first minister, his own action has seen him accused of hypocrisy.

In his statement today, Mr Anwar praises Mr Yousaf’s actions at the time on behalf of Mr Asghar and says the man’s daughter is also grateful.

But he also laid out a timeline indicating Mr Yousaf’s meeting with the consul general was not arranged with Mr Asghar in mind, although this may have become its unexpected focus.

 

Mr Anwar said: “Once Mr Asghar was sentenced to death in January 2014, the family recognised that it was a race against time and I was instructed to act by the family in February 2014, following the sentence of death being pronounced in a Pakistani court. 

“Humza Yousaf’s role as International Minister came at a critical time in the life of Mohammed Asghar, with Humza being of Pakistani origin, it meant his ministerial role was crucial in raising the case with the Pakistani authorities. 

“One of my first steps on behalf of the family was to place pressure on Humza Yousaf, the Scottish Government and others to intervene, whilst the family were highly critical of the FCO and UK Government who wanted them to remain silent.

“Humza Yousaf agreed to act after the family spoke out and indeed, he continued to meet with Pakistani officials including the Governor of Punjab in the weeks and months ahead.

"The matter was raised by the UK Prime Minister and the family were also met with the then first Minister Alex Salmond in October 2014.

“Over the last two weeks it has been suggested that supporting a man accused of blasphemy in Pakistan was an easier option for Mr Yousaf than turning up for a vote for same sex marriage, the reality is very different.

“The Asghar family welcomed Mr Yousaf’s support as a high-profile Muslim at a critical time, when others were too scared to speak out and use their influence.  

READ MORE: Yousaf denies deliberately skipping gay marriage vote

“Humza knew that Mr Asghar’s life hung by a thread and that every passing minute increased the threat to his life. 

“Jasmine Rana the daughter of Mohammed Asghar asked me to state that they have always appreciated the role that Humza Yousaf played, it was a critical role, and he was tireless in ensuring that her father Mr Asghar was finally able to return home in 2016 to Scotland, to be surrounded by his family and sadly he passed away in 2017. “

“Jasmine believes that but for Mr Yousaf’s involvement and support, she doubts her father would ever have died peacefully at home, for that her family will always be grateful.” 

My Yousaf’s campaign has been asked to explain why he originally set up his meeting with the Consul General on the day of the marriage vote, given he did so before Mr Asghar was sentenced, before his family engaged Mr Anwar, and before Mr Anwar urged Mr Yousaf to intervene in the case.

 

[Richey Edwards]

The SNP can say bye bye to my vote regardless of which of these clowns is picked tbh.

[Boo Khaki]

6 minutes ago, virginton said:

I've asked you to give a concrete example of the rollback/refusal to extend minority rights that you're concerned about.

All three issues you've raised are either a) not a rollback of existing rights b) nothing to do with an extension of minority rights, and now c) don't involve minority rights at all. 

It's almost as if this Defence of Rights argument is concern trolling with nothing of substance to support it.  

So why not just be honest and state you won't support her because you fundamentally disagree with her views and consider her a religious wrong 'un who isn't fit for leadership? There's no need to concoct a non-existent societal threat from Forbes to hold that point of view. 

Err... that is exactly what I'm saying.

You did not 'ask for a concrete example', you simply stated that there were none, and that's not a point I was ever in contention with anyway, so I don't see it as incumbent upon me to provide one.

The point of my extrapolation was to emphasise that we can't predict what is coming a year, two years, or five years from now, so demanding concrete examples is a bit pointless when my concerns, as I've repeatedly stated, stem from not trusting Forbes with potential, future hypotheticals, which are by definition going to be less than 'concrete' at this precise moment. 

You can demand I just declare her a 'religious wrong'un' if you like, and as I have said, that pretty much is my view of her. However, I think it's important to lend some context to why I feel that about her, rather than just writing her off as a religious nutjob, hence why I have provided some expansion on exactly what it is that concerns me about her religiosity, and how I am concerned that it might well affect policy and direction on a few salient, current matters. 

It's also not about 'defence of rights' or 'concern trolling'. As I've repeatedly stated, I am totally unconcerned about the potential for Forbes to 'roll back rights', so you really need to change that tedious record. My issues with Forbes are exclusively concerns about how her personal views might shape future policy and direction. It is completely unnecessary to specify which future policies, because there will undoubtedly be matters arising that nobody is thinking about right at this moment, and it's also patently ridiculous to go demanding examples that haven't yet been conceived.

[Anonapersona]

4 hours ago, alta-pete said:

She what?

Didn't she say that she would not have voted for the SNP’s equal marriage legislation had she been an MSP at the time?

[Dunning1874]

30 minutes ago, virginton said:

Utter horseshit - Catholic politicians to name just one category (race not relevant) have absolutely been hauled over the coals for their stance on abortion rights and gay marriage between competing interests. 

Have these Catholic politicians been hauled over the coals for not doing enough to support gay marriage or abortion rights after speaking and voting in favour of it?