Asked by Channel 4 if she would have voted against gay marriage, had she been elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2014 when the legislation was approved, she said: "I would have."
Now, perhaps she had non-religious reasons for saying this but if she does she didn't feel the need to elaborate. We can only assume she would have voted against gay marriage because of her faith.
Maybe she'll explain her secular reasoning at some point, if she has any, but until then we have to assume it was because of her faith.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kate-forbes-admits-would-voted-29267948
What Yousaf said about the same issue.
Speaking on LBC Radio, he said: "I'm a supporter of equal marriage. Let me get to the crux of the issue that you're asking me.
"I'm a Muslim. I'm somebody who's proud of my faith. I'll be fasting during Ramadan in a few weeks’ time.
"But what I don't do is, I don't use my faith as a basis of legislation. What I do as a representative, as a leader, as a Member of the Scottish Parliament is my job is to bring forward policy and pursue it in the best interest of the country."
It could be argued that this was purely a political statement. I'm sure Yousaf is well aware that many in Scotland are more comfortable with a Christian 'voting with their conscious' than a Muslim doing the same.
What Yousaf did was avoid voting for gay marriage by inventing an excuse to miss the vote.
I would rather have an honest MSP who voted against it for their own personal reasons while accepting that once passed it was the law of the land and to be accepted as such.
What Yousaf did was avoid voting for gay marriage by inventing an excuse to miss the vote.
True, and every politician has to do certain things to placate a certain key constituency at various points of their career. Expecting politicians to behave any other way is naive in the extreme. He could have avoided placating the mosque, lost their support in the next election, and then we wouldn't have to bother talking about him.
Also, Yousaf doesn't have the luxury of having an acceptable religion to make allowances for so it's not really surprising that, even after he is no longer dependent on the mosque vote, he can't come out and say, 'I needed their support.' Life would be so much simpler if he could just be a Christian.
I would rather have an honest MSP who voted against it for their own personal reasons while accepting that once passed it was the law of the land and to be accepted as such.
That's only an option for politicians who follow the 'correct' religion.
I accept that politicians who are religious are going to have personal views and it may well affect their decisions, but in many ways that just means they have to work doubly hard to find secular arguments to justify their decisions.
With arguments about assisted dying, protection of abortion clinics, and Gender Recognition, which of these are you happy to just let Forbes hide behind her faith by exercising her conscious and which one would you like her to be able to put forward coherent secular arguments?
Remember, an MSP voting on a single issue is very different to a FM setting the agenda for the party and the country.
I accept that politicians who are religious are going to have personal views and it may well affect their decisions, but in many ways that just means they have to work doubly hard to find secular arguments to justify their decisions.
Nope. You really have no idea of the concept of "faith" whatsoever.
I am not discriminating against her for her religeous beliefs. I am not refusing to provide goods or services. I am not in a position with any power over her.
She thinks it acceotable for the state to discriminate against folk on grounds of their sexuality iw no gay marriage..
Nope. You really have no idea of the concept of “faith” whatsoever.
Probably.
Even when I was getting dragged to church every Sunday, when I was saying prayers first thing before lessons started, before break, after break, before lunch, after lunch, and before home time, and even during the entire year of actual education that was lost so we could learn how to put a cardboard tasting biscuit in our mouth, I honestly never felt much in the way of faith.
The only time I felt myself in need of any kind of faith was when we started transitioning to adulthood and suddenly found that saying 'being gay is bad just because' wasn't going to cut it anymore and people were actually asking, 'but why is being gay bad?' having 'faith' meant we were able to continue with our homophobic views for a bit longer because they were justified by our 'beliefs'.
If 'faith' means never having to justify or defend your prejudices then the world could do with a lot less of it, imo.
I do not think that there should be any bar against a person of faith holding the highest political office in the land. No matter what there faith is no matter how actively or passively they follow their faith.
I personally do not want a person whos decision would be guided by their faith to hold the office of First Minister. I believe we're in bad situation when if we start barring people from office on the basis of their faith or any other characteristic
This is amongst other factors is what lead me to vote Regan 1st and Yousaf 2nd in the leadership contest whilst believing that Forbes was the most able candidate.
placate a certain key constituency...He could have avoided placating the mosque...even after he is no longer dependent on the mosque vote
This is a weird suggestion. Are we just going to let it slide? There's only one constituency in Scotland where Muslims are close to 13%, and Yusuf didn't even represent it. He was on the regional Glasgow list where Muslims are about 3% of the population. That's leaving aside that Muslims don't vote as a unitary bloc depending what "the mosque" tells them to. He's never been "dependent on the mosque vote". This is like the old canard that all Catholics are in the service of Rome or Jews are just going to do whatever Israel tells them to.
https://www.ft.com/content/66d02b4b-5c30-4955-8144-bbcd962078b1
Meanwhile, I hadn't realised that Owen Jones (who it should be noted has never lived or worked or studied or up to this point has had any particular interest in Scotland) was now writing a column for The National. But his latest column is a corker: "you know what the SNP's difficulties are really about? Gaza. And if you aren't upset about Humza's difficulties, you're probably a genocidaire".
With arguments about assisted dying, protection of abortion clinics, and Gender Recognition, which of these are you happy to just let Forbes hide behind her faith by exercising her conscious and which one would you like her to be able to put forward coherent secular arguments?
Again, as stated earlier, she will always vote 'No' to those types due to her religion, and dare say her constituents, but as FM she will go with whatever way the votes have gone, again, i do not prefer her to anyone, but democracy does mean you get to vote and leadership is about managing the outcome of that vote to the best of your responsibility.
As for Humza, i just always got the vibe of him being a bit like Gordon Brown, and i mean that in the way they took over the leadership, when the writing was already on the wall and their terms in charge was basically herding cats.
This is a weird suggestion. Are we just going to let it slide?
It's not unusual for influential figures to be able to exert political pressure in any number of ways. It doesn't simply come down to demographics of a constituency or region. That's what I took from 'pressure from the mosque'.
But of course, it could have simply been to avoid socially awkward situations after Friday prayers at his local mosque. I guess we'll never know for sure.
I'm reassured by this:
“But what I don’t do is, I don’t use my faith as a basis of legislation. What I do as a representative, as a leader, as a Member of the Scottish Parliament is my job is to bring forward policy and pursue it in the best interest of the country.”
But then as a Muslim he doesn't really have the luxury of being able to come right out and say, 'I just vote how the Imam tells me' so who knows.
Again, as stated earlier, she will always vote ‘No’ to those types due to her religion, and dare say her constituents, but as FM she will go with whatever way the votes have gone,
But as FM she is not just voting her conscious on individual issues. She is supposed to be driving the agenda for the country. She would have to be actively pursuing policies that she would then vote against.
Or do we just pretend these issues don't exist while she is FM and wait for someone who isn't constrained by their faith?
Ypusaf for all his protestations that he could leave his faith at home on the assisted dying bill he has only met the anti side who are 99% religious fundamentalists funded by soutar and us Christian nationalists and has come out parroting the anti nonsense. I have no doubt that is at best fear of backlash from the mosque.
So that just looks hypocrisy
I have no doubt that is at best fear of backlash from the mosque.
Could well be.
While it's an issue that is absolutely not clear cut and I would imagine many people (me included) have conflicting feelings on the issue the fact he refused to meet with certain groups is not a good sign.
It's the kind of thing I can definitely see people seeking to reinforce their own viewpoints, even unconsciously. From what I understand Sturgeon is swinging back towards being against it.
It's definitely worth keeping a close eye on and personally I'm very much in favour (although as I said I have some concerns but I think they are outweighed by the suffering caused).
So based on nothing whatsoever it's now an accepted fact that loads of higher rate income tax paying Scots have moved to England...
These "movers", were they already working elsewhere and just happened to live here, or they've moved with their jobs to England or something else (like it was made up in the first place)?
So based on nothing whatsoever it’s now an accepted fact that loads of higher rate income tax paying Scots have moved to England…
Only as far as Berwick i hear.
Wouldnt the issue of assisted dying be something that could well be addressed by a citizens assembly well informed by experts in the field òr even a second chamber?
I am cautiously in favour of assisted dying, I am hoping that there would be a free vote on the issue.
I have no doubt that is at best fear of backlash from the mosque.
Really surprised to hear this kind of language from TJ. Which mosque? What do you think exactly would happen?
Bizarre that I'm feeling the need to defend the leader of the SNP against allegations he's in the grip of clerics when I disagree with both his politics and his religion.
There is going to be a free vote on tbe assisted dying bill. Parliament is the right place for this
PCA hear hoofbeats? Its not something I have said lightly but he is exactly quoting word for word tbe false propaganda the anti side use after various meetings with the anti side.
Islam has a very strong position on this. It needs to be respected for the individual but its not a sound basis for public policy.
"There is going to be a free vote on tbe assisted dying bill." good.
"Parliament is the right place for this " It's too late for this bill now but I reckon this is the type of issue which well informed citizens assemblies could deal with
Not in this case given the utterly foul behaviour from the anti side. Inventing fake secular reasons to object when their objection is religious. Yes i have seeen the breifing paper where they make clear this is their tactic. They unashamedly lie as its " fibbing for god" so acceptable in their eyes.
It needs strong folk to stand up to the barrage of lies. It needs dispassionate experts.
To go back to more general stuff. The snp led government have had some great sucesses in lifting folk out of poverty and in insulating the people of Scotland from some of the worst excesses from down south but look tired and have run out of steam. Pretty typical after being in power that long. A big fightback from the tartan tories in thevparty recently.
Greens have squandered so much political capital on non core issues. Im not impressed.
Tories? Very much a minority party and run by a nonentity.
Labour? Contine to be useless just still having tantrums.
Lib dems. Still have the liar Carmichael and have never apologised. Once you lose your reputation for integrity they have nothing left
A plague on all their houses
Radio Scotland reporting rumours from more than one source that Humza is considering resigning before a VONC.
Which would complete a week showing a masterclass in shooting yourself in the foot.
I did like the comment someone made on how a minority govt would work. Maybe pass fewer new laws and concentrate on governing well with what we have?
Certainly seems to be more than a rumour.
I feel bad as Sturgeon really did give him a horrible hospital pass in the way she resigned prior to the shit hitting the fan, but he hasn't shown the competency to deal with it so I guess it was inevitable.
Certainly seems to be more than a rumour.
could be an “I’ll go, but who are you going to elect then” test… because if everything hinges on Ash Regan or perhaps one or two other abstentions - they now need to think about what outcome they want after they’ve kicked Humza in the nuts.
i think we can be pretty sure we are about to get a new first minister - so who is it going to be?
- a new leader of the SNP needs to find support across their factious party; then to get acceptance from the people who just wanted Humza out
- an alternative from within the opposition would need support from lib/lab/green/alba so is almost impossible
so will we see an election? Presumably SNP still end up largest party after than - but with a smaller number of seats… so who will work together ?
“I did like the comment someone made on how a minority govt would work. Maybe pass fewer new laws and concentrate on governing well with what we have?”
Oh, yes, and the comment that the Gender Bill was stupid, and shouldnt have been brought in. (well, not in those words, but that was the sentiment).
SNP, Tories and Labour won't work with each other - especially when there's another Scottish and another UK general election next year. It would be months of infighting without any time to achieve anything. So...SNP minority government...?
The other side of the same coin is why I can see why Humza wouldn't want to hang around and just get a kicking continuously until the next defeat. Its a bit like the Sunak position, except the Tories have better unity and Sunak is more arrogant (and may even think he can salvage it).
Maybe pass fewer new laws and concentrate on governing well with what we have?
Implementation by the executive is even harder than legislation by Parliament. You actually have to have a plan and consistency and support. What can you achieve in less than a year without political capital in the middle of a polyshambles? Obviously it would be your duty to try but I wouldn't be overconfident.
Wouldnt the issue of assisted dying be something that could well be addressed by a citizens assembly well informed by experts in the field òr even a second chamber?
No. Assisted dying is a moral question on which everyone is equally qualified, not merely some kind of technical question that can be settled by experts. The "technocrats" work by separating issues into two categories: the things that you believe are ideological and political and messy, but the things I believe are technical and not open to challenge.
And this stuff about "citizens assemblies" is a weird Rory Stewart hobby horse. It's intending to circumvent the democratic processes and democratically-elected parties that aren't producing the outcomes he wants. The UK (and Scotland) doesn't need more levels of political discourse and representation, and voters don't want them.
No. Assisted dying is a moral question on which everyone is equally qualified
I would like to see all Govts in this country to be doing their very best for the elderly and disabled who want to live before they start to discussing legislation about how they're going to die. So far they all seem to be failing that very low bar.
This is the problem with having the main opposition being branch offices of the Westminster parties.
For the Scottish Parliament to work properly there has to be the ability to compromise which is made much more difficult when the bosses get on the phone and say, 'You know that legislation you've spent 2 years working on? Yeah, we don't like it. Ditch it.'
Labour and Tories in Scotland need to detach themselves from the Westminster parties. You can be unionists without being lapdogs.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24284455.live-humza-yousaf-considers-standing-down-first-minister/
Alba reaction
Alba MP Kenny MacAskill told the BBC his party's only MSP Ash Regan has been back in contact with the first minister.He said it would be an "absurd situation" for Yousaf to resign when there was an "opportunity for the SNP to get back on the independence track" through a pact with Alba.
However, he said the Alba Party were not there to simply "prop up" the SNP.
Alba suddenly not feeling quite so cocky? Wonder why...
Alba definitely overplayed their hand. Crowing that Regan was the most important person in Scottish politics or whatever it was Salmond was boasting about certainly made the SNP think again.
Can’t quite get over the degree of ineptitude Yousaf has displayed. Sacking the Greens certainly showed’em who’s Boss.
Can’t quite get over the degree of ineptitude Yousaf has displayed. Sacking the Greens certainly showed’em who’s Boss.
I suspect he got the idea in his head that if the Greens ended the BHA he would be seen as weak.
I'm not sure if that would have actually been the case. The Greens were (and still are) in a state of civil war between the leadership and the membership. Let them get on with it, fall apart, and sweep up the disgruntled ex-members.
so will we see an election? Presumably SNP still end up largest party after than – but with a smaller number of seats… so who will work together ?
SNP will lose seats for sure - and almost certainly enough that SNP and Greens together cannot form a government. Alba will get no seats. Labour / lib dem / tory will not work with the SNP
We will end up with a labour / tory government. Its the only way the numbers will add up and labours tribal hatred of the SNP will lead them into this mistake. Like with Edinburgh council they will try to dress it up as a labour minority government. This is what labour have done in many councils such is their hatr5ed of the SNP that they would rather work with the tories than with fellow social democrats
It would put Labour in a difficult spot from a UK perspective too, fighting a Westminster GE against the Tories while power sharing at Holyrood. And then there will be another Holyrood GE in 2026 too?
Alba suddenly not feeling quite so cocky? Wonder why…
Salmond wont care. He got the attention which to him is far more important than Scottish Nationalism or whats best for Scotland.
Have to say I'm quite enjoying this soap opera/clusterf*** the SNP have brought upon themselves. Coalition politics at its very best. And to think many people want to replicate it across the rest of the UK!
And then there will be another Holyrood GE in 2026 too?
Not if there is an election now
I would like to see all Govts in this country to be doing their very best for the elderly and disabled who want to live before they start to discussing legislation about how they’re going to die. So far they all seem to be failing that very low bar.
The health of the general population is of course the priority for anyone supporting assisted dying, which will benefit society both for the patients and those around them.
Not if there is an election now
I thought it was a fixed, 5-yearly schedule now?
Surely that clock would be reset if there is one now? ie itys five years from the previous election
Maybe. I thought the calendar had been fixed as a result of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act (so as not to have any dual elections) but that was, of course, repealed so it's all up for grabs again?
"And then there will be another Holyrood GE in 2026 too?"
"Not if there is an election now"
According to Wings Over Scotland who has a good track record the Scotland Act means any election will just be for a parliament to run up to 2026.
@Scotroutes The fixed term parliament act and repeal was Westminster elections. Holyrood elections under the Scotland Act.
