The Dirty Independence Question

[pink_triangle]

51 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

I'm sure supporters of many parties are happy with ministers in their particular ministries without wanting them to be prime/first minister.

Could you honestly see Labour in 2023 handing a prominent role to an MP who didn’t support gay marriage, I just couldn’t see it happening.

[pink_triangle]

16 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

What’s the story with Robertson not standing? He was my first thought last week. Always thought he spoke well but maybe yesterday’s man ?

The way things are going he could be a safe pair of hands for the next couple of years. Steady the ship after Sturgeon etc. Unless I’m missing something 🤷‍♂️ 

As LJS says, nobody wants to be the SNP David Moyes.

[zahidf]

10 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think it’s pretty weird in 2023. I know a few Christians and none could care less if men marry, what difference does it make to them?

To  the point is (whether you think weird or not) she was known to have the views on Sunday/Monday when SNP politicians got behind her, why did they change their mind when her views hadn’t changed .

Tbf people knew she was part of that church with those views, but she'd never been asked about HER particular views on gay marriage until just now(ish)

 

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Tbf people knew she was part of that church with those views, but she'd never been asked about HER particular views on gay marriage until just now(ish)

 

I must have been psychic then!!

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Tbf people knew she was part of that church with those views, but she'd never been asked about HER particular views on gay marriage until just now(ish)

 

I guess they didn't expect her to be so open about her "views". They maybe assumed she'd be more of a "politician".

 

 

[pink_triangle]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

I guess they didn't expect her to be so open about her "views". They maybe assumed she'd be more of a "politician".

 

 

I mean when someone in that type of church fobs off questions about gay marriage, you can make a strong assumption what they think. I think she could have probably got away with saying she wouldn’t have voted in 2015, but she has evolved her views following its implementation. The truth is she believes gay people shouldn’t have the same rights as “normal” people like her.
 

While she may not try to ban gay marriage (not that the votes are there anyway) it’s reasonable to question this part of her character and her character will influence her leadership.

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I mean when someone in that type of church fobs off questions about gay marriage, you can make a strong assumption what they think. I think she could have probably got away with saying she wouldn’t have voted in 2015, but she has evolved her views following its implementation. The truth is she believes gay people shouldn’t have the same rights as “normal” people like her.
 

While she may not try to ban gay marriage (not that the votes are there anyway) it’s reasonable to question this part of her character and her character will influence her leadership.

Oh yeah, it's obvious, but as you said, they are Christians who believe in gay marriage. People were giving her the benefit of the doubt and then she ruined it by opening her mouth

[pink_triangle]

Just watched another car crash interview with Forbes about conversion therapy where she can’t give a straight answer and keeps talking about coercion.

I take it she means that those poorly gays who have feel shamed and broken down should be able to go to her amazing church and learn not to be gay anymore and be pure like her. This homophonic bigot should be removed from the SNP government not just the leadership election. I just couldn’t see anyone with these views being promoted to such a lofty position by labour in 2023.

[LJS]

34 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Just watched another car crash interview with Forbes about conversion therapy where she can’t give a straight answer and keeps talking about coercion.

I take it she means that those poorly gays who have feel shamed and broken down should be able to go to her amazing church and learn not to be gay anymore and be pure like her. This homophonic bigot should be removed from the SNP government not just the leadership election. I just couldn’t see anyone with these views being promoted to such a lofty position by labour in 2023.

I think you've made your point. You're starting to sound a bit obsessed now. it is clear that her views have had absolutely no influence on SNP policy whatsoever. 

At every stage of the rolling back on restrictions on sexual freedoms, there have been politicians on all sides who have opposed them, some much more vehemently than Forbes, who as far as I can see has done nothing at all to stand in the way of any such reforms and has done nothing to try and impose her views on anyone else.

I don't like her views, and I think holding them should and will effectively disqualify her from leading the SNP, but she is clearly not a fucking witch and does not deserve some of the abuse that is coming her way.

Edited February 22, 2023 by LJS

[LJS]

2 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

What’s the story with Robertson not standing? He was my first thought last week. Always thought he spoke well but maybe yesterday’s man ?

The way things are going he could be a safe pair of hands for the next couple of years. Steady the ship after Sturgeon etc. Unless I’m missing something 🤷‍♂️ 

I'm starting to think you might be right Comfy.

[LJS]

6 hours ago, steviewevie said:

LJS - I definitely sympathise with the Scottish independence cause...but with Sturgeon going, and a likely Labour win in Westminster,  then that whole thing is definitely postponed indefinitely.

you may well be right. I mean lets face it - short of taking up arms & invading Berwick, the "most powerful devolved government in the world" is effectively powerless. I think it unlikely however, that a party whose whole purpose is to achieve independence is suddenly going to give up on that aim. It remains to be seen how much damage all the shenanigans  going on will impact support for the SNP but they have been written off many times before...

6 hours ago, steviewevie said:

I think it it will still happen one day, demographics is on your side, but not in the short term. 

And obviously SNP is a broad church, broader than labour or conservatives...mostly soft left, but some real cultural conservatives like Forbes...maybe there needs to be a more pro independence parties..?

I think all parties have cultural conservatives  - I suspect a fair few Labour red wall voters aren't rushing out to join pride marches. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by LJS

[LJS]

Can I just check that everyone who's is so outraged at Kate Forbes' views (even though she has made it clear she accepts the legal changes that have taken place over a number of years) are equally outraged at the UK government's moves to stop the Scottish government making life very slightly less complicated for trans people?

[Neil]

2 hours ago, LJS said:

Can I just check that everyone who's is so outraged at Kate Forbes' views (even though she has made it clear she accepts the legal changes that have taken place over a number of years) are equally outraged at the UK government's moves to stop the Scottish government making life very slightly less complicated for trans people?

Or more confusing, by backing measures that scotland promptly ignores because the law doesn't match the concerns people have. 

[zahidf]

5 hours ago, LJS said:

Can I just check that everyone who's is so outraged at Kate Forbes' views (even though she has made it clear she accepts the legal changes that have taken place over a number of years) are equally outraged at the UK government's moves to stop the Scottish government making life very slightly less complicated for trans people?

Well she supports rhe UK govt in that doesn't she? She's on Ash Regans side in the point that she doesn't support the GRA bill.

 

[zahidf]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

I think you've made your point. You're starting to sound a bit obsessed now. it is clear that her views have had absolutely no influence on SNP policy whatsoever. 

At every stage of the rolling back on restrictions on sexual freedoms, there have been politicians on all sides who have opposed them, some much more vehemently than Forbes, who as far as I can see has done nothing at all to stand in the way of any such reforms and has done nothing to try and impose her views on anyone else.

I don't like her views, and I think holding them should and will effectively disqualify her from leading the SNP, but she is clearly not a fucking witch and does not deserve some of the abuse that is coming her way.

Is anyone abusing her? She's expressing bigoted views, so people are calling her a bigot. She's still running as SNP leader, so until she stops, people are entitled to have a go at the bigoted things she is saying.

[lost]

Social norms can change drastically even in less than decade. You can see that from certain tv programs that are not that old being pulled from places like netflix.

Unless we re-write the bible every 5 years someone calling themselves a Christian or any religion is probably going to be on a loser.

She should be allowed to have her beliefs and equally people who don't think a religious text is a good basis for a modern society should be free to not vote for her.

[mcshed]

On the Humza getting an easy ride front, if he does support gay marriage like he says he does why was he mysteriously absent from the chamber on voting day? Forbes is out of step with modern Scotland and shouldn't be First Minister but that doesn't mean Humza should.

[mcshed]

10 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

What’s the story with Robertson not standing? He was my first thought last week. Always thought he spoke well but maybe yesterday’s man ?

The way things are going he could be a safe pair of hands for the next couple of years. Steady the ship after Sturgeon etc. Unless I’m missing something 🤷‍♂️ 

Robertson's line is that with young kids it wouldn't be right to take on such a massive role, it sounds like he doesn't want the hassle. 

I'm a Scottish Labour supporter but I don't want an awful First Minister even if it is damaging to the SNP and I would be much happier with Swinney or Robertson as safe pair of hands than the current crop of candidates.

[pink_triangle]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

I think you've made your point. You're starting to sound a bit obsessed now. it is clear that her views have had absolutely no influence on SNP policy whatsoever. 

At every stage of the rolling back on restrictions on sexual freedoms, there have been politicians on all sides who have opposed them, some much more vehemently than Forbes, who as far as I can see has done nothing at all to stand in the way of any such reforms and has done nothing to try and impose her views on anyone else.

I don't like her views, and I think holding them should and will effectively disqualify her from leading the SNP, but she is clearly not a fucking witch and does not deserve some of the abuse that is coming her way.

However her views could influence her leadership and these questions need to be asked. If you ask I’m obsessed then I will hold my hands up to an obsession related to the principles of equality which I am sure you share.

Minorities need politicians like Forbes to stand up for them. The answer to a question about conversion therapy is about as easy as you can get, there is no magic wand to stop people being gay, neither is it an issue someone being gay. As the labour leader Starmer says it should be banned full stop.

She is not getting abuse, although it should be noted she is trying to make out she is the one being discriminated against, not the gay couples who she believes their relationships don’t have the same value as hers.

[pink_triangle]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

 

I think all parties have cultural conservatives  - I suspect a fair few Labour red wall voters aren't rushing out to join pride marches. 

I think the big difference here is that labour are (as far as I know) not promoting politician’s with these values to high profile offices and as well as questioning Forbes values you need to question Sturgeons judgement, these views have not come as a huge surprise to anyone.

I have checked and 22 labour MPs voted against gay marriage in 2014, I suspect the number would be lower now. I hadn’t heard of most of them (a lot probably not MPs now) but I don’t think any hold high profile roles in labour shadow cabinet. My view is you couldn’t get promoted to the level of Forbes in Labour in 2023 with those views, happy to criticise any labour MP in that position if that changes.

[pink_triangle]

9 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Robertson's line is that with young kids it wouldn't be right to take on such a massive role, it sounds like he doesn't want the hassle. 

I'm a Scottish Labour supporter but I don't want an awful First Minister even if it is damaging to the SNP and I would be much happier with Swinney or Robertson as safe pair of hands than the current crop of candidates.

I agree, anyone who has any affinity for Scotland (I do) wants some level of competency and Humza seems a complete lightweight who may just win by default. I wonder if one will see the shit show and step up.

 

[zahidf]

25 minutes ago, mcshed said:

On the Humza getting an easy ride front, if he does support gay marriage like he says he does why was he mysteriously absent from the chamber on voting day? Forbes is out of step with modern Scotland and shouldn't be First Minister but that doesn't mean Humza should.

thats historical more than anything: he says he supports it now, which is one up on Forbes! She says she doesn't support it now

[zahidf]

18 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

 

She is not getting abuse, although it should be noted she is trying to make out she is the one being discriminated against, not the gay couples who she believes their relationships don’t have the same value as hers.

Common right wing victimisation whining. No wonder Badenoch has written a telegraph article in support of her

[zahidf]

37 minutes ago, lost said:

Social norms can change drastically even in less than decade. You can see that from certain tv programs that are not that old being pulled from places like netflix.

Unless we re-write the bible every 5 years someone calling themselves a Christian or any religion is probably going to be on a loser.

She should be allowed to have her beliefs and equally people who don't think a religious text is a good basis for a modern society should be free to not vote for her.

I dont think anyone isnt saying she shouldnt have homophobic beliefs, but shes saying its not fair people thinking less of her because of her being a bigot

[pink_triangle]

18 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

 

She's also better looking than Sturgeon and Humaz  so a small bonus as well although not by much.  Before anyone has a go - Neil was talking about his sexy nurses yesterday :😜 

I think LJS is even warming to her as well.  A wee woody maybe ?

 

Barry neither you or LJS have a chance with Kate, no way is she looking for an alternative outside her marriage!