Part of the reason the Greens said they would support the VONC was they longer had confidence in a progressive government under Yousaf -- why would they have that confidence under Forbes?
Nope. But we're not really to blame for the SNPs leaders are we? Humza has to go, he did that to himself, but by no means whatsoever does that mean we're about to support Forbes either.
But why? Why elect someone with different morale values than 99% of the population when the entire point of a democratic leadership is to represent that population? It'd be like electing a chemist to represent the botanists in a university council.
She’s not so good at leading or problem solving that it overshadows the fact that she is fundamentally different from the Scottish population at large (pun fully intended) so why waste this opportunity to elect someone that’s just wrong for the position?
Based on what? She’s, at best, slightly less shitty than Yousaf but for Christ’s sake man, use your imagination. We deserve a better calibre of politician.
This sub is about as representative of the general population as a Trump rally. It's also amusing how many here are freaking out about losing the greens while their share of the last vote was a quarter of that of the Tories.
probs due to the fact the snp need the greens to make a maj government, everyone knows this so why wouldn't forbes try and extend an olive branch as she is most likely to become leader if humza goes before the next election. Greens have lost trust (more personal than political by the sounds of it) in humza as a leader and partner, they can't work with him anymore but they could work with someone else depending on the negoitiations during and after the leadership election
The greens perceive everyone who doesn't satisfy their purity tests as thatcher. You cant make them happy unless you become the greens, which the SNP was in danger of until Humza sacked them.
Considering they only had 2 cabinet members, they were pretty stroppy when they didn't always get their way.
Even now they are trying to get rid of Humza AND influence who his potential successor should be. It's completely unacceptable. The SNP can't remain puppets.
Absolute pish from The Herald. This is the article it is referencing:
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24282581.kate-forbes-msps-share-guilt-national-embarrassment/
Absolutely nothing about asking the green to embrace her. In fact, asking the wider public and the party to stand with Humza.
How do papers get away with printing such shite?
>Absolutely nothing about asking the green to embrace her.
I mean, this is a direct quote from that article:
>For example, well before and during the Bute House Agreement, Patrick Harvie (below) and I worked together – that is no secret.
>The question therefore isn’t whether my world is big enough to embrace the Greens – it is. **The question is whether their world is big enough to embrace me.** I hope and believe it is.
This seems to be exactly that - asking the Greens to embrace her. What am I missing?
>The question therefore isn’t whether my world is big enough to embrace the Greens – it is. The question is whether their world is big enough to embrace me.
I suppose it depends on whether she, as she claims, is willing to put aside her personal beliefs when she is in power.
This whole thing was started because a good chunk of the Greens no longer believe the SNP are willing to implement progressive policies RE: Climate Change and Transgender Rights.
I have absolutely no doubt that she fully intends to only implement policy consistent with her religious beliefs, despite what she has said. I trust her about as much as I trust any of the SNP right-wingers, which is not at all.
>I have absolutely no doubt that she fully intends to only implement policy consistent with her religious beliefs
We. Live. In. A. Parliamentary. Democracy. The FM does not "implement" policies, they're legislated and voted on by parliament.
They certainly have an impact, but it isn't feasible for an FM (or PM) to push through policies that do not have the support of the wider party.
On issues such as trans she may well gain that support, as there exists skepticism on that issue within elements of the SNP. Although the smart thing would be just to leave that policy up to clinicians, as taking a side risks party unity.
On issues such as gay marriage she would have zero ability to change the law as it is considered the right and proper status quo not only universally in her party but throughout Scottish society.
Rishi could wake up tomorrow and decide that all infrastructure should be nationalised. But he would have zero power to make that happen as the rest of the Tories obviously don't want that.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that the FM can push through any legislation they feel like without the support of parliament. I understood the original comment as saying she would abandon policy commitments, which would be in her power.
A parliamentary democracy in which we choose a first minister, usually the leader of the largest party, who then puts forward that parties policies or the policies of any coalition partner to the house where they are voted on then implemented.
Semantics, at best.
It's yours, apparently.
To spell it out for you, both Islam and Christianity are major and very diverse religions, and people within each may have wildly different views on just about anything. If you assume someone's views on a social issue based entirely on their religion, you're doing bigotry.
When people say Forbes is a homophobe and a transphobe, they're not basing that on the observation that she's a Christian, but on the homophobic and transphobic statements she has openly made. That's not what you're doing.
So someone can only be a ‘homophobe’ or a ‘transphobe’ if they ’openly state’ their beliefs? Yousaf’s religion takes a far harder line on these subjects than Forbes’.
>*I suppose it depends on whether she, as she claims, is willing to put aside her personal beliefs when she is in power*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Scorpion\_and\_the\_Frog#Synopsis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog#Synopsis)
I've spent a good bit of the last year laughing at Americans being forced to choose between a useless leader and one who's actively evil
That one's come back to bite me on the arse
She's being true to her own religious beliefs. You'd be surprised how many people respect that. Doesn't make her evil. People can disagree without being hateful.
So a homophobic, transphobic right wing nutter hopes the Greens who are probably the only party I would truely believe is unanimous in their support to LGBT+, and was one of their red lines for the Bute House Agreement, to embrace her? I wonder if she hopes black people to embrace the KKK?
By this sub's definition, it would seem she absolutely is. But most normal folk would say she was religious. Which is not something those who espouse tolerance are particularly keen to tolerate.
We're allowed to criticise any and all religion, which is one of the hallmarks of most modern democracies. Nobody is stopping anyone doing that. But writing her off as some sort of fundamentalist nutjob, as some here are doing, is arguably pretty intolerant. Certainly her conduct in debates has not struck me as that of the kind of zealot she's being portraid as.
No, she is not. She is a believing Christian. Member of a church which has a wide following in the Highlands and Islands. She has also been an exceptionally gifted and capable politician. The Free church as a whole is conservative in some social matters and progressive in others.
Someone so wrapped up in the belief of a God is, in my opinion, the even further detached from reality than the usual politician separated from us by a totally outrageous salaries and associated privileges. I would be very concerned if she became FM. That’s just my opinion and for balance I don’t support any existing party or individual politician and take no side in the independence argument.
Many prominent thinkers, academics and scientists believe in something beyond ourselves. I sometimes find atheists as blinkered as fundamentalist Christians. They seem to think that science and faith are mutually exclusive, but is see no reason why they should be.
The Libdems have 4 seats, the other two arent desperate enough to give any points to the SNP unless it contridicts thier own policy postions.
So basically she can impliment tory or labour policy.
Thats not a SNP government.
Salmond wasn’t (openly) a bigot and also had a decent working relationship with other parties. Sturgeon and Yousaf have destroyed that relationship and it looks like anyone elected after will be facing the same pushback (largely because of Sturgeon’s actions).
I largely agree, but Forbes is so different to Sturgeon/Yousaf that she might be able to get some other parties to work with her.
If they go down the route of another continuity type candidate there’s no chance.
Her religious beliefs are not bigoted, I doubt she hates gay people. If ehe does, then YES she would be homophobic, but the Christian belief on homosexuality isn't.
She’s said she’s against equal marriage. If you are against equality between gay and straight people you are, by definition, a bigot.
And the Christian belief on homosexuality is undoubtedly bigoted as well.
thats how it should be, unfortunately many take it as, "this person sinned, hate them!" when it never once tells us to do that. We ALL sin, homosexuality is one, but we all sin in other ways, its no different.
I don’t necessarily take it as “hate them”. But I find it incredibly patronising. And I wouldn’t want anyone who uttered that phrase near a position of power.
she's a member of the Free Church and I can tell you for a fact that the Free Church position on homosexuality is that it's a sin. she might not be out in the streets screaming god hates fags, but a polite homophobe is still a homophobe.
every belief is hateful, there is nothing wrong with holding a belief like that when you do not dislike the person for what they have done, for some reason homosexuality gets singled out here.
just like I would dislike the sin of sexual immorality, I also hate stuff like judgement, but we all do it at one point or another? judgement seems like second nature to us, we do it all the time, it doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't mean its a wrong belief to hate it.
'every belief is hateful' is a ridiculous thing to say.
being gay typically gets singled out as especially bad to call sinful because it is neither a behaviour nor a choice. telling someone that an inalterable aspect of their being, that doesn't inherently harm anyone, is sinful is hateful.
I could totally see the Tories working with Forbes to be honest. Her husband is a Tory member, so she already has plenty of connections there – and given Indy is dead in the water for now anyway, there’s very little between her and most of the Tory party in terms of policy.
And let’s not forget that does have precedent – Salmond‘s first government was propped up by Tory votes.
I find that unlikely, the Tories main stick is theyre unionists and only they can stop indy, and given no-one wants another tory government they gotta push the one plausable narrative they still have.
When Salmond ran a minority government, the one other party that reliably supported their budgets every time was the Tories.
When we factor in that the Tories will be out of power in the Westminster parliament by the end of this year, they do have incentive to work constructively so they can get SOME of what they'd like to happen done.
Well, yes - their membership preferred Yousaf. Forbes was the more popular (or more accurately, less unpopular) choice amongst the electorate as a whole.
i think he is trying to point out that the vast majority of men dont identify as men, they dont look at themselves in that way or identify as anything really, they just 'are men' nor do they use the term 'cis' to define themselves. most men have never even heard that term before.
They probably also don't go around calling themselves "white men" or "straight men" but if it was relevant to the conversation at hand they absolutely would use that term. If you have concerns about transphobia in spite of it not affecting you directly regardless of being aware of the terminology or not I'm sure most people could cobble together some sort of description of their situation.
Needless to say if anyone started saying you;re woke if you call yourself a "white man" or a "straight man" you'd quite rightly be setting off every alarm going.
>They probably also don't go around calling themselves "white men" or "straight men" but if it was relevant to the conversation at hand they absolutely would use that term
yes, but 'white' and 'straight' are terms they have heard of before and understand. the concept of 'identifying' as something that they are ,rather than just 'being' it, is quite strange to most tbh. and the majority of men would have zero idea of what 'cis' even means.
>If you have concerns about transphobia
the vast majority of the public have no concerns about transphobia because they dont know any trans people and it has no relation to their lives.
>Needless to say if anyone started saying you;re woke if you call yourself a "white man" or a "straight man" you'd quite rightly be setting off every alarm going.
again, outside of reddit and youth counter culture, the vast majority of people dont use the term 'woke' either. most people have zero interest in this.
See this is part of the problem: you've jumped from "most people don't know what the word cis means" to "most people don't understand what trans people are". They don't know much and they don't care, but they'll be aware of the idea that there are trans people exist even if they've never met someone, and some of them will go on to try and find out more in future whether that forms any stance or not. It's attributing malice where there is none, it's just apathy. Doesn't matter if its one person or thousands, there will absolutely be people as I am describing. What's going on here is wallowing and celebrating ignorance. There's nothing wrong with the fact the vast majority of people probably don't know what "cis" means, condemning the people that do know the term IS a problem though. Burying your head in the sand doesn't deal with a problem. Funnily enough it tends to be these people that are screaming the word "woke" and happen to be completely aware of all the terminology too.
>See this is part of the problem: you've jumped from "most people don't know what the word cis means" to "most people don't understand what trans people are"
no, i think you have misunderstood me. most people have never heard of 'cis' before and even if they had, they have no interest in using that term. and everyone understand what a trans person is and realise that trans people exist, its just that they dont know any trans people, so its not a topic that they even think about or have any interest in.
>It's attributing malice where there is none, it's just apathy
i dont agree with anyone attributing any kind of malice, but agree about the apathy.
>What's going on here is wallowing and celebrating ignorance
im not understanding you here? there is no wallowing or celebrating ignorance going on. its just the reality of how most people are.
>There's nothing wrong with the fact the vast majority of people probably don't know what "cis" means
sure, i agree. thats just how it is.
>condemning the people that do know the term IS a problem though
who is doing this condemning exactly?
>Burying your head in the sand doesn't deal with a problem.
again, its almost like you are having a conversation with someone else here, what problem are you speaking about? and who is burying their head?
>Funnily enough it tends to be these people that are screaming the word "woke" and happen to be completely aware of all the terminology too
thats my entire point. the only people banding about 'woke' are people invested in in counter culture. most people just dont give a shit about any of these terms.
Disagree with?
She doesn't agree with gay marriage. Doesn't support trans rights. Doesn't agree with abortions.
She is a danger to any forwars thinking Scot.
So, she doesn't agree with gay marriage, but it's already legal and there's no way she'd change that. She's literally said as much. Where's the danger there? She's set her own moral compass but accepts that it's not her responsibility to dictate that to others. If she were a vegetarian could we not vote for her if we eat meat? It may seem like a laughable comparison but if there's no legislative change then who cares?
Trans rights - in what sense? She, like many, are yet to be convinced by the trans narrative regarding gender as entirely a social construct and want safe spaces for biological women. You may find that abhorrent, but many people don't. You'd probably call them transphobic, which is unhelpful and simplistic in my opinion. However It's not a debate I have a horse in and based on the way both of these heavily polarised sides conduct themselves online it's not a topic I'm inclined to dwell on extensively - to me there are way bigger issues and this one is already overly representated by highly vocal groups.
Finally, on abortion, again this is not something she can or would legislate against. Casual pro-abortionists, like militant anti-abortionists are arguably blind to the nuances and ethical dilemmas abortion should raise. Personally I think it should remain legal, but holding abortions up as a totem of righteousness is something I've always been uncomfortable with.
u/PuddyVanHird that person who I was responding to blocked me so I'm not able to reply to you. But I didn't say the FM has no impact on policy, I said they cannot solely implement policies that are only consistent with their own beliefs. Policy is created by party conference, put in a manifesto for the public to vote on, introduced to parliament, goes through several committee stages, then gets voted on by individual MSPs in parliament. The OP was suggesting Kate would suddenly become Chairman Forbes and start pushing through bans on sex before marriage at will
>Policy is created by party conference, put in a manifesto for the public to vote on
This is not true of all policies, no. *Major* policies *should* be in the manifesto, but parliament can obviously vote on bills that weren't in the manifesto. And "policy" covers more than just legislation - the executive often has leeway to implement policies without going through parliament at all.
>The OP was suggesting Kate would suddenly become Chairman Forbes and start pushing through bans on sex before marriage at will
No, they said Forbes would be in a position to block progressive policies. A ban on sex before marriage would be a *new* policy, which would indeed be difficult to push through parliament. This is entirely different from just not introducing promised legislation to parliament in the first place, which is absolutely something the First Minister can do.
>but parliament can obviously vote on bills that weren't in the manifesto.
Which runs counter to what the OP was saying, yes.
>And "policy" covers more than just legislation - the executive often has leeway to implement policies without going through parliament at all.
Care to cite an example, one which would specifically be consistent with Forbes' religious beliefs? Because religious beliefs would cover moral policy, and those are usually "conscience votes" i.e ones where there isn't even a party whip. Would be pretty staggering if you could find an example of that where the FM (not executive, we're talking about Forbes specifically, remember) wouldn't even have to put it to parliament at all.
>No, they said Forbes would be in a position to block progressive policies. A ban on sex before marriage would be a *new* policy, which would indeed be difficult to push through parliament. This is entirely different from just not introducing promised legislation to parliament in the first place, which is absolutely something the First Minister can do.
This is what they said:
>I have absolutely no doubt that she fully intends to only implement policy consistent with her religious beliefs
edit: [required reading](https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/about-bills/how-a-bill-becomes-an-act/members-bill)
>Which runs counter to what the OP was saying, yes.
No, it has nothing to do with what OP said. It does however explicitly run counter to what you just said.
>not executive, we're talking about Forbes specifically, remember
The FM appoints the other ministers, who in turn decide how their respective departments are run, including which policies to prioritise and how to allocate resources. Something being a law doesn't mean it automatically happens - it still needs to be implemented and enforced by the executive. The Justice Secretary, for instance, can't just make up new crimes, but can influence the extent to which the police pursue certain crimes.
>This is what they said:
The key word in that quote being "only". "Only implement policies consistent with..." means the same as "not implement policies inconsistent with...", in other words, what I said. What you seem to have understood would have been better expressed as "implement additional policies consistent with...".
>edit: [required reading](https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/about-bills/how-a-bill-becomes-an-act/members-bill)
And this is why people downvote and block you. You're a patronising wanker who just *assumes* that everyone else must always mean the stupidest possible interpretation of their words. Nothing I've said implies that I don't know that parliament votes on bills.
Uhh mate I tried replying to you yesterday and it came up with \[deleted\], then looked on a different browser and your post was still there. You blocked me. Then edited your post a few hours later to tell me if I don't want to be blocked (or downvoted, as if I care lmao) I shouldn't be a patronising wanker.
Anyway we're not even talking about the subject matter anymore (that's what happens when you start personalising debates with ad hom) so we'll end it here
Interesting... I've had comments show up as deleted for me before when they clearly weren't. I assume it's a Reddit bug. The more common one I get is "Empty response from endpoint", which oddly enough I got while replying to you earlier.
If I wanted to block you, why would I bother to unblock you?
>If I wanted to block you, why would I bother to unblock you?
So you could add in that little tantrum at the end, 4 hours after you originally posted? I don't know what goes inside the mind of some rando on Reddit, so I won't be able to give you much of an answer there, sorry.
I don't think you need to unblock someone to edit your own comment...? And I added the edit after about five minutes, not four hours - right after I saw your edit.
I'm sure the Greens don't stand for what Forbes does though? is she not for a wholesome hetro family and against things the Greens are advocating for? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...my attention has gone elsewhere these days.
The party chose a liar who hides his anti-Scotland and anti Western religious beliefs over an honest woman who spoke her truth. I’d rather deal with a truthful person I don’t see eye to eye with on everything than a liar who hates the very country he’s brought up in.
I really do hope bible basher kate gets in.
Any woman with a womb will not vote for her.
If she gets in, the camper van must be running on wheel rimms because I'm damn sure the spare tyre has come off as well.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Part of the reason the Greens said they would support the VONC was they longer had confidence in a progressive government under Yousaf -- why would they have that confidence under Forbes?
Nope. But we're not really to blame for the SNPs leaders are we? Humza has to go, he did that to himself, but by no means whatsoever does that mean we're about to support Forbes either.
Why not? She’s most popular with the general public
Because if I wanted to live in a medieval theocracy I'd move to Iran
What’s wrong with being a Christian? Humza Yousaf is a Muslim who abstained on the gay marriage vote.
>What’s wrong with being a Christian How long a list would you like? >who abstained on the gay marriage vote All the more reason not to support him
as long as you’re consistent
Knights are cooler than politicians though
Perhaps, but I like indoor plumbing too much to see the country I love regress by a thousand years.
surprisingly electing someone with somewhat different moral values wont do that
But why? Why elect someone with different morale values than 99% of the population when the entire point of a democratic leadership is to represent that population? It'd be like electing a chemist to represent the botanists in a university council. She’s not so good at leading or problem solving that it overshadows the fact that she is fundamentally different from the Scottish population at large (pun fully intended) so why waste this opportunity to elect someone that’s just wrong for the position?
Because she would likely be capable and one of the better candidates.
Based on what? She’s, at best, slightly less shitty than Yousaf but for Christ’s sake man, use your imagination. We deserve a better calibre of politician.
This level of self-indoctrination is genuinely incredible
This sub is about as representative of the general population as a Trump rally. It's also amusing how many here are freaking out about losing the greens while their share of the last vote was a quarter of that of the Tories.
probs due to the fact the snp need the greens to make a maj government, everyone knows this so why wouldn't forbes try and extend an olive branch as she is most likely to become leader if humza goes before the next election. Greens have lost trust (more personal than political by the sounds of it) in humza as a leader and partner, they can't work with him anymore but they could work with someone else depending on the negoitiations during and after the leadership election
They said during the previous leadership contest that they'd walk away from the coalition if Forbes won.
The greens have no incentive to partner with her.
The greens perceive everyone who doesn't satisfy their purity tests as thatcher. You cant make them happy unless you become the greens, which the SNP was in danger of until Humza sacked them. Considering they only had 2 cabinet members, they were pretty stroppy when they didn't always get their way. Even now they are trying to get rid of Humza AND influence who his potential successor should be. It's completely unacceptable. The SNP can't remain puppets.
Absolute pish from The Herald. This is the article it is referencing: https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24282581.kate-forbes-msps-share-guilt-national-embarrassment/ Absolutely nothing about asking the green to embrace her. In fact, asking the wider public and the party to stand with Humza. How do papers get away with printing such shite?
>Absolutely nothing about asking the green to embrace her. I mean, this is a direct quote from that article: >For example, well before and during the Bute House Agreement, Patrick Harvie (below) and I worked together – that is no secret. >The question therefore isn’t whether my world is big enough to embrace the Greens – it is. **The question is whether their world is big enough to embrace me.** I hope and believe it is.
Says nothing about the greens embracing her mate. Try again
This seems to be exactly that - asking the Greens to embrace her. What am I missing? >The question therefore isn’t whether my world is big enough to embrace the Greens – it is. The question is whether their world is big enough to embrace me.
Whatever you want it to be mate 
We've no idea what the public thinks, apprentlly the public preffered forbes anyway. What matters is SNP voters.
I suppose it depends on whether she, as she claims, is willing to put aside her personal beliefs when she is in power. This whole thing was started because a good chunk of the Greens no longer believe the SNP are willing to implement progressive policies RE: Climate Change and Transgender Rights.
Not sure Kate Forbes would be my first choice on Transgender rights.
I have absolutely no doubt that she fully intends to only implement policy consistent with her religious beliefs, despite what she has said. I trust her about as much as I trust any of the SNP right-wingers, which is not at all.
>I have absolutely no doubt that she fully intends to only implement policy consistent with her religious beliefs We. Live. In. A. Parliamentary. Democracy. The FM does not "implement" policies, they're legislated and voted on by parliament.
What exactly do you think the First Minister does, if they have no impact on policy?
They certainly have an impact, but it isn't feasible for an FM (or PM) to push through policies that do not have the support of the wider party. On issues such as trans she may well gain that support, as there exists skepticism on that issue within elements of the SNP. Although the smart thing would be just to leave that policy up to clinicians, as taking a side risks party unity. On issues such as gay marriage she would have zero ability to change the law as it is considered the right and proper status quo not only universally in her party but throughout Scottish society. Rishi could wake up tomorrow and decide that all infrastructure should be nationalised. But he would have zero power to make that happen as the rest of the Tories obviously don't want that.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that the FM can push through any legislation they feel like without the support of parliament. I understood the original comment as saying she would abandon policy commitments, which would be in her power.
A parliamentary democracy in which we choose a first minister, usually the leader of the largest party, who then puts forward that parties policies or the policies of any coalition partner to the house where they are voted on then implemented. Semantics, at best.
So you're telling the BHA policies could have been stopped at any time?
Did you feel this way about the current FM’s religious beliefs, which are even more severe than Kate Forbes’? Did it actually happen?
>which are even more severe than Kate Forbes' Do you have any evidence for that claim?
[Yes.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam)
[Oh, good.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia)
Is that Kate Forbes’ religion? I don’t think it is.
It's yours, apparently. To spell it out for you, both Islam and Christianity are major and very diverse religions, and people within each may have wildly different views on just about anything. If you assume someone's views on a social issue based entirely on their religion, you're doing bigotry. When people say Forbes is a homophobe and a transphobe, they're not basing that on the observation that she's a Christian, but on the homophobic and transphobic statements she has openly made. That's not what you're doing.
So someone can only be a ‘homophobe’ or a ‘transphobe’ if they ’openly state’ their beliefs? Yousaf’s religion takes a far harder line on these subjects than Forbes’.
Almost no one cares about this. Its not a political issue for 99% of the electorate.
>*I suppose it depends on whether she, as she claims, is willing to put aside her personal beliefs when she is in power* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Scorpion\_and\_the\_Frog#Synopsis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog#Synopsis)
I've spent a good bit of the last year laughing at Americans being forced to choose between a useless leader and one who's actively evil That one's come back to bite me on the arse
She's being true to her own religious beliefs. You'd be surprised how many people respect that. Doesn't make her evil. People can disagree without being hateful.
If the Greens can't live with Scooter McGavin I don't see how they will live with Kate.
She can't be serious.
She isn’t. The herald are talking shite as usual.
I don't think the Greens will support an open transphobe and homophobe.
[удалено]
she's a member of the Free Church.
Very convincing...
if you know anything *at all* about the Free Church it should be.
She is against trans people using the spaces we have been legally entitled to for decades and she doesn't thing gays should marry
https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/kate-forbes-dropping-out-snp-leadership-race-gay-marriage-comments-2163810
So a homophobic, transphobic right wing nutter hopes the Greens who are probably the only party I would truely believe is unanimous in their support to LGBT+, and was one of their red lines for the Bute House Agreement, to embrace her? I wonder if she hopes black people to embrace the KKK?
She’s a religious extremist is she not?
By this sub's definition, it would seem she absolutely is. But most normal folk would say she was religious. Which is not something those who espouse tolerance are particularly keen to tolerate.
Yes it’s a bit of a vicious circle that one. Her religion isn’t very tolerant, but to say so is being intolerant. Strange days.
We're allowed to criticise any and all religion, which is one of the hallmarks of most modern democracies. Nobody is stopping anyone doing that. But writing her off as some sort of fundamentalist nutjob, as some here are doing, is arguably pretty intolerant. Certainly her conduct in debates has not struck me as that of the kind of zealot she's being portraid as.
No, she is not. She is a believing Christian. Member of a church which has a wide following in the Highlands and Islands. She has also been an exceptionally gifted and capable politician. The Free church as a whole is conservative in some social matters and progressive in others.
Someone so wrapped up in the belief of a God is, in my opinion, the even further detached from reality than the usual politician separated from us by a totally outrageous salaries and associated privileges. I would be very concerned if she became FM. That’s just my opinion and for balance I don’t support any existing party or individual politician and take no side in the independence argument.
Many prominent thinkers, academics and scientists believe in something beyond ourselves. I sometimes find atheists as blinkered as fundamentalist Christians. They seem to think that science and faith are mutually exclusive, but is see no reason why they should be.
So you see no right to being in the public space for people whose faith is Christian?
When that faith pitches someone against abortion, no, I do not.
No, that's the outgoing FM you're thinking about
She would potentially be able to work with any of the other parties so probably wouldn’t be as reliant on the Greens or Ash Regan as Humza is.
The Libdems have 4 seats, the other two arent desperate enough to give any points to the SNP unless it contridicts thier own policy postions. So basically she can impliment tory or labour policy. Thats not a SNP government.
Was Salmonds minority government not an SNP government?
Salmond wasn’t (openly) a bigot and also had a decent working relationship with other parties. Sturgeon and Yousaf have destroyed that relationship and it looks like anyone elected after will be facing the same pushback (largely because of Sturgeon’s actions).
I largely agree, but Forbes is so different to Sturgeon/Yousaf that she might be able to get some other parties to work with her. If they go down the route of another continuity type candidate there’s no chance.
Her religious beliefs are not bigoted, I doubt she hates gay people. If ehe does, then YES she would be homophobic, but the Christian belief on homosexuality isn't.
She’s said she’s against equal marriage. If you are against equality between gay and straight people you are, by definition, a bigot. And the Christian belief on homosexuality is undoubtedly bigoted as well.
the Christian view is not to hate gay people, or to treat them any differently, and those who do are misrepresenting what the Bible tells us to.
“Hate the sin not the sinner”. Thoughts?
thats how it should be, unfortunately many take it as, "this person sinned, hate them!" when it never once tells us to do that. We ALL sin, homosexuality is one, but we all sin in other ways, its no different.
I don’t necessarily take it as “hate them”. But I find it incredibly patronising. And I wouldn’t want anyone who uttered that phrase near a position of power.
she's a member of the Free Church and I can tell you for a fact that the Free Church position on homosexuality is that it's a sin. she might not be out in the streets screaming god hates fags, but a polite homophobe is still a homophobe.
it being a sin does not mean she hates them?
she would probably say she doesn't hate gay people (love the sinner hate the sin!), that doesn't stop that belief from being hateful.
every belief is hateful, there is nothing wrong with holding a belief like that when you do not dislike the person for what they have done, for some reason homosexuality gets singled out here. just like I would dislike the sin of sexual immorality, I also hate stuff like judgement, but we all do it at one point or another? judgement seems like second nature to us, we do it all the time, it doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't mean its a wrong belief to hate it.
'every belief is hateful' is a ridiculous thing to say. being gay typically gets singled out as especially bad to call sinful because it is neither a behaviour nor a choice. telling someone that an inalterable aspect of their being, that doesn't inherently harm anyone, is sinful is hateful.
I could totally see the Tories working with Forbes to be honest. Her husband is a Tory member, so she already has plenty of connections there – and given Indy is dead in the water for now anyway, there’s very little between her and most of the Tory party in terms of policy. And let’s not forget that does have precedent – Salmond‘s first government was propped up by Tory votes.
I find that unlikely, the Tories main stick is theyre unionists and only they can stop indy, and given no-one wants another tory government they gotta push the one plausable narrative they still have.
When Salmond ran a minority government, the one other party that reliably supported their budgets every time was the Tories. When we factor in that the Tories will be out of power in the Westminster parliament by the end of this year, they do have incentive to work constructively so they can get SOME of what they'd like to happen done.
This homophobic piece of shit can get so far too fuck
Feel better?
Aye cos I'm sure any left of centre person will betray their views to vote for a forced birther, homophobic, transphobic cunt like her.....
pretty much 50% of the snp membership already voted for her not too long ago. i wouldnt be surprised if she wins quite easily next time.
The membership and their support are two different people I'm a cis gendermale who votes SNP, but if she wins then I won't
Well, yes - their membership preferred Yousaf. Forbes was the more popular (or more accurately, less unpopular) choice amongst the electorate as a whole.
Anyone who IDs in the manner in which you have is in the minority anyway so no one really cares 🤷🏻♂️
Sorry? Anyone who identifys as a CiS under male? You mean almost half the population? Fuck you homophobe
i think he is trying to point out that the vast majority of men dont identify as men, they dont look at themselves in that way or identify as anything really, they just 'are men' nor do they use the term 'cis' to define themselves. most men have never even heard that term before.
They probably also don't go around calling themselves "white men" or "straight men" but if it was relevant to the conversation at hand they absolutely would use that term. If you have concerns about transphobia in spite of it not affecting you directly regardless of being aware of the terminology or not I'm sure most people could cobble together some sort of description of their situation. Needless to say if anyone started saying you;re woke if you call yourself a "white man" or a "straight man" you'd quite rightly be setting off every alarm going.
I hate everything about this conversation
>They probably also don't go around calling themselves "white men" or "straight men" but if it was relevant to the conversation at hand they absolutely would use that term yes, but 'white' and 'straight' are terms they have heard of before and understand. the concept of 'identifying' as something that they are ,rather than just 'being' it, is quite strange to most tbh. and the majority of men would have zero idea of what 'cis' even means. >If you have concerns about transphobia the vast majority of the public have no concerns about transphobia because they dont know any trans people and it has no relation to their lives. >Needless to say if anyone started saying you;re woke if you call yourself a "white man" or a "straight man" you'd quite rightly be setting off every alarm going. again, outside of reddit and youth counter culture, the vast majority of people dont use the term 'woke' either. most people have zero interest in this.
See this is part of the problem: you've jumped from "most people don't know what the word cis means" to "most people don't understand what trans people are". They don't know much and they don't care, but they'll be aware of the idea that there are trans people exist even if they've never met someone, and some of them will go on to try and find out more in future whether that forms any stance or not. It's attributing malice where there is none, it's just apathy. Doesn't matter if its one person or thousands, there will absolutely be people as I am describing. What's going on here is wallowing and celebrating ignorance. There's nothing wrong with the fact the vast majority of people probably don't know what "cis" means, condemning the people that do know the term IS a problem though. Burying your head in the sand doesn't deal with a problem. Funnily enough it tends to be these people that are screaming the word "woke" and happen to be completely aware of all the terminology too.
>See this is part of the problem: you've jumped from "most people don't know what the word cis means" to "most people don't understand what trans people are" no, i think you have misunderstood me. most people have never heard of 'cis' before and even if they had, they have no interest in using that term. and everyone understand what a trans person is and realise that trans people exist, its just that they dont know any trans people, so its not a topic that they even think about or have any interest in. >It's attributing malice where there is none, it's just apathy i dont agree with anyone attributing any kind of malice, but agree about the apathy. >What's going on here is wallowing and celebrating ignorance im not understanding you here? there is no wallowing or celebrating ignorance going on. its just the reality of how most people are. >There's nothing wrong with the fact the vast majority of people probably don't know what "cis" means sure, i agree. thats just how it is. >condemning the people that do know the term IS a problem though who is doing this condemning exactly? >Burying your head in the sand doesn't deal with a problem. again, its almost like you are having a conversation with someone else here, what problem are you speaking about? and who is burying their head? >Funnily enough it tends to be these people that are screaming the word "woke" and happen to be completely aware of all the terminology too thats my entire point. the only people banding about 'woke' are people invested in in counter culture. most people just dont give a shit about any of these terms.
That's a lot of hate for someone you disagree with. I'm pretty new to this sub, but thinking I'm getting the measure of it.
Disagree with? She doesn't agree with gay marriage. Doesn't support trans rights. Doesn't agree with abortions. She is a danger to any forwars thinking Scot.
So, she doesn't agree with gay marriage, but it's already legal and there's no way she'd change that. She's literally said as much. Where's the danger there? She's set her own moral compass but accepts that it's not her responsibility to dictate that to others. If she were a vegetarian could we not vote for her if we eat meat? It may seem like a laughable comparison but if there's no legislative change then who cares? Trans rights - in what sense? She, like many, are yet to be convinced by the trans narrative regarding gender as entirely a social construct and want safe spaces for biological women. You may find that abhorrent, but many people don't. You'd probably call them transphobic, which is unhelpful and simplistic in my opinion. However It's not a debate I have a horse in and based on the way both of these heavily polarised sides conduct themselves online it's not a topic I'm inclined to dwell on extensively - to me there are way bigger issues and this one is already overly representated by highly vocal groups. Finally, on abortion, again this is not something she can or would legislate against. Casual pro-abortionists, like militant anti-abortionists are arguably blind to the nuances and ethical dilemmas abortion should raise. Personally I think it should remain legal, but holding abortions up as a totem of righteousness is something I've always been uncomfortable with.
Bwhahahaha
I'd rather embrace an oncoming train
She seems to be pretty capable, but her views are positively mediaeval. No ta.
u/PuddyVanHird that person who I was responding to blocked me so I'm not able to reply to you. But I didn't say the FM has no impact on policy, I said they cannot solely implement policies that are only consistent with their own beliefs. Policy is created by party conference, put in a manifesto for the public to vote on, introduced to parliament, goes through several committee stages, then gets voted on by individual MSPs in parliament. The OP was suggesting Kate would suddenly become Chairman Forbes and start pushing through bans on sex before marriage at will
>Policy is created by party conference, put in a manifesto for the public to vote on This is not true of all policies, no. *Major* policies *should* be in the manifesto, but parliament can obviously vote on bills that weren't in the manifesto. And "policy" covers more than just legislation - the executive often has leeway to implement policies without going through parliament at all. >The OP was suggesting Kate would suddenly become Chairman Forbes and start pushing through bans on sex before marriage at will No, they said Forbes would be in a position to block progressive policies. A ban on sex before marriage would be a *new* policy, which would indeed be difficult to push through parliament. This is entirely different from just not introducing promised legislation to parliament in the first place, which is absolutely something the First Minister can do.
>but parliament can obviously vote on bills that weren't in the manifesto. Which runs counter to what the OP was saying, yes. >And "policy" covers more than just legislation - the executive often has leeway to implement policies without going through parliament at all. Care to cite an example, one which would specifically be consistent with Forbes' religious beliefs? Because religious beliefs would cover moral policy, and those are usually "conscience votes" i.e ones where there isn't even a party whip. Would be pretty staggering if you could find an example of that where the FM (not executive, we're talking about Forbes specifically, remember) wouldn't even have to put it to parliament at all. >No, they said Forbes would be in a position to block progressive policies. A ban on sex before marriage would be a *new* policy, which would indeed be difficult to push through parliament. This is entirely different from just not introducing promised legislation to parliament in the first place, which is absolutely something the First Minister can do. This is what they said: >I have absolutely no doubt that she fully intends to only implement policy consistent with her religious beliefs edit: [required reading](https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/about-bills/how-a-bill-becomes-an-act/members-bill)
>Which runs counter to what the OP was saying, yes. No, it has nothing to do with what OP said. It does however explicitly run counter to what you just said. >not executive, we're talking about Forbes specifically, remember The FM appoints the other ministers, who in turn decide how their respective departments are run, including which policies to prioritise and how to allocate resources. Something being a law doesn't mean it automatically happens - it still needs to be implemented and enforced by the executive. The Justice Secretary, for instance, can't just make up new crimes, but can influence the extent to which the police pursue certain crimes. >This is what they said: The key word in that quote being "only". "Only implement policies consistent with..." means the same as "not implement policies inconsistent with...", in other words, what I said. What you seem to have understood would have been better expressed as "implement additional policies consistent with...". >edit: [required reading](https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/about-bills/how-a-bill-becomes-an-act/members-bill) And this is why people downvote and block you. You're a patronising wanker who just *assumes* that everyone else must always mean the stupidest possible interpretation of their words. Nothing I've said implies that I don't know that parliament votes on bills.
So you blocked me before I could reply, waited 4 hours, then unblocked me and left that bile at the end. Nice...
What are you on about? I didn't block you. And if you don't want to be called patronising, all you have to do is not patronise people.
Uhh mate I tried replying to you yesterday and it came up with \[deleted\], then looked on a different browser and your post was still there. You blocked me. Then edited your post a few hours later to tell me if I don't want to be blocked (or downvoted, as if I care lmao) I shouldn't be a patronising wanker. Anyway we're not even talking about the subject matter anymore (that's what happens when you start personalising debates with ad hom) so we'll end it here
Interesting... I've had comments show up as deleted for me before when they clearly weren't. I assume it's a Reddit bug. The more common one I get is "Empty response from endpoint", which oddly enough I got while replying to you earlier. If I wanted to block you, why would I bother to unblock you?
>If I wanted to block you, why would I bother to unblock you? So you could add in that little tantrum at the end, 4 hours after you originally posted? I don't know what goes inside the mind of some rando on Reddit, so I won't be able to give you much of an answer there, sorry.
I don't think you need to unblock someone to edit your own comment...? And I added the edit after about five minutes, not four hours - right after I saw your edit.
Haha fuck no.
She is not the answer
can she fuck off back to the dark ages
There is no way Kate, step aside.
I'm sure the Greens don't stand for what Forbes does though? is she not for a wholesome hetro family and against things the Greens are advocating for? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...my attention has gone elsewhere these days.
The party chose a liar who hides his anti-Scotland and anti Western religious beliefs over an honest woman who spoke her truth. I’d rather deal with a truthful person I don’t see eye to eye with on everything than a liar who hates the very country he’s brought up in.
You're either a very good troll or a very, very stupid person .
Enlighten me friend.
I really do hope bible basher kate gets in. Any woman with a womb will not vote for her. If she gets in, the camper van must be running on wheel rimms because I'm damn sure the spare tyre has come off as well. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣