No I am not and that is not so. I disapprove of all religious as you well know. I can tolerate it when its private and does not adversely affect others.
this is the point you are missing. She wants to actively discriminate against gay folk and justifies that by her religion. Thats unacceptable and borderline illegal
For example I find islam even inthe mainstream to be discriminatory. I also have a personal conviction about futile treatment. I had a muslim patient who because of his religous belief wanted futile treatment. I fought for his rights to have it. Against my personal beliefsbecause that was the right thing to do
Or the woman I took to catholic funeral mass for her father when she had no one else to do so - no family. I did this in my own time while not being paid. Because it was the right thing to do.
Religion is a protected characteristic in equality legislation. Your discrimination is therefore borderline illegal .
You are badly missing a point here scotroutes. That religous protection does not extend to allowing them to discriminate against others as a matter of public policy. Lots of legal stuff around this. You are not allowed to discriminate against anyone in the supply of goods and services for any reason - even religeon.
Also my position is not discrimination because I have no power over her.
If she was mainstream CoS I would have no huge issue - because the CoS is not discriminatory and does not justify discrimination on the basis of sexuality as acceptble
I'm voting for Forbes purely because she'll provide those opposed to independence (especially UK Govt and its client media) with less 'ammunition' than they would with the other two.
No I am not and that is not so. I disapprove of all religious as you well know. I can tolerate it when its private and does not adversely affect others.
I see. So any religious beliefs are OK as long as they don't live their life in that manner. Forbes has not said she wishes to remove any rights from anyone. So how are her views affecting others?
A bit like the helmet debates. I don't care what anyone thinks as long as they don't pass laws making me wear a helmet. Forbes can believe homosexuality is a sin but as long as she doesn't start passing laws removing rights from any section of society it doesn't matter.
As an aethiest I think all religions are mistaken. But as long as their beliefs don't mean they pass laws affecting me go for it. I have cousins who are deeply religious. Lovely people. We just disagree about whether there is a god. We don't fall out over it
Forbes has not said she wishes to remove any rights from anyone. So how are her views affecting others?
She made it clear that she would not vote for equality for homosexuals. She made it clear she believes it acceptable to discriminate against them
I've seen no evidence that Yousaf is any less religious than Forbes.
However, Forbes hides behind her religion. Yousaf doesn't.
Yousaf realises that he can't simply justify his views by saying, 'As a Muslim I believe this...' because he would be crucified for it (pun intended). Even when he says things that are contrary to his religious beliefs people still question what he 'really' believes (for what it's worth, I think he did intentionally skip the vote but I understand why).
Forbes simply says, 'because my religion' and is given a pass by many because this is Scotland.
It is absolutely fine for a FM to be religious. However, they can't hide behind their religion. They have to be able to make secular arguments to justify their views. If they can't, then they need to accept they have private views that they keep very much to themselves and they speak to the views that they can justify in a secular way.
Forbes isn't being discriminated against because of her religion. Her religion is protecting her from the scrutiny any other candidates views would receive.
Religion is a protected characteristic in equality legislation. Your discrimination is therefore borderline illegal .
Absolute toss. Get in the sea (or, if you're capable, walk on its surface).
I'm not sure she is being protected from scrutiny at all. she has had a tough ride on this
Politecameraaction - a bit harsh to say the least. Scotroutes is making a strong point. No need to be rude
I’ve seen no evidence that Yousaf is any less religious than Forbes.
HIs wife does not wear a headscarf. Is that an indication?
I’m not sure she is being protected from scrutiny at all. she has had a tough ride on this
I've not heard anyone ask the natural follow up question, 'But why do you believe this?'
She seems to just say, 'Because my religion' and the interview moves on.
If she were an atheist (or Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, etc) and she said she the things she's said she would be expected to justify these views using secular arguments. Using the 'It's my religion' answer would not be available to any non-Christian candidate.
That is what I mean. She has never been pushed on why she believes what she believes.
Scotroutes is making a strong point. No need to be rude
It's a strong point of complete toss. It is not illegal (or even borderline illegal, whatever that means) to discriminate against someone on religious grounds when deciding to cast a vote at an election.
HIs wife does not wear a headscarf. Is that an indication?
I don't know. Although it's more likely to be an indication of his wife's depth of feeling.
We tend to assume it's only Christians who can be in relationships where one partner is more religious than the other but I think in the UK it's equally possible for non-Christians to have relationships where the commitment to religion varies between partners.
tjagain Full Member
I’m pretty scunnered by the lack of political nous and talent here
One thing that seems to have served the SNP well in the past was that compared to the UK-wide parties they took Holyrood seriously and had talented people there, whereas the ambitious members of other parties opted to go to Westminster. The way that following Sturgeon's resignation many seemed to be a bit embarrassed by the selection of leadership candidates does seem to have undermined that.
Forbes said while she wouldn't have backed the legislation, she would have "respected and defended the democratic choice that was made".
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23335035.kate-forbes-voted-gay-marriage-scotland/
Being able to disagree with a policy while accepting it is the wish of the majority is a bit like basic democracy.
I would have voted, as a matter of conscience, along the lines of mainstream teaching in most major religions that marriage is between a man and a woman.
CoS allow gay marriage in their churches IIRC Judaism does as well or some branches of it ( both a bit qualified but not the absolutist position she holds and claims other religions have). Catholicism remains firmly against it again IIRC anglican is moving towards it with some bishops wanting it but the church as a whole remains against it
thats her trying to row back and justify her position. she is mis representing other religions.
Fair point Bruce. I was looking to see any indications that i could find about what type of islam Yousaf follows. It would certainly mean he is not a fundamentalist. IMO but beyond that you are right - we should not draw conclusions about one half of a marriage from the other really
Sikhism is against gay marriage
Hinduism seems very divided.
thats the major religions in Scotland ( with my above post)
So for Forbes to claim her views are in alignment with all major religeons is at best disingenious at worst outright false
I’m voting for Forbes purely because she’ll provide those opposed to independence (especially UK Govt and its client media) with less ‘ammunition’ than they would with the other two.
Im interested in this On what basis? ( not questioning your judgement - looking for information)
I was looking to see any indications that i could find about what type of islam Yousaf follows
Most Muslims of ****stani heritage are Sunni, would it make a difference if he Shi'ite?
Edit: Btw it's permissable/halal for a Muslim man to marry a Christian or a Jewish woman, although it isn't allowed the other way round. So Yousaf's wife doesn't even need to be Muslim and he could still be considered to be a devout Muslim.
I was thinking more about at what level rather than which sect if you see what I mean. How fundamentlist he is. Thats not really the right word but I hope yo get the gist.
Re Forbes, I'm with TJ on this.
You need to strip away the religious aspects of it and just look at it as policy. Forbes' personal stance on the rights of homosexuals, same sex marriages, conversion therapy etc are at odds with the stance of the majority of the membership, the SNP voting public and their manifesto. I really don't care what her source of motivation for that stance is - it might be interesting to understand how she came to those opinions but I'm not sure it's relevant. Does that preclude her from being a member of the party - of course not. And whilst I appreciate she has said she would not attempt to change the policy of the party in these areas if she became leader I just don't think that's good enough - I think wanting a leader of a party to have personal opinions that align with the policy of the party on every significant issue is a pretty reasonable expectation. I don't think it counts as bigotry to not wish to see a leader of a party elected that cannot hand on heart say they personally believe in everything in that party's manifesto. Plenty of normal party members will not believe in everything a party stands for but a party leader should be held to a higher standard. For me the bigotry line would be crossed if she was ejected from the party for values born of her religious beliefs - but this obviously is not what is happening here.
She has never been pushed on why she believes what she believes.
Err, you really don't get this "faith" thing at all, do you? What sort of secular argument are you expecting to hear? It's not like she can come up with physical proof of her God.
LOlz @ Scotroutes You mean she disnae have a photo of him? dagnamit
mainstream teaching in most major religions [is] that marriage is between a man and a woman.
she is mis representing other religions.
No, you're going too far there. I'm athiest and in favour of equal marriage, but she is factually correct. organised religion is overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Only 40% of Christians are Prods, and only some Prod groups in some countries are in favour of equal marriage (although tbf the Church of Scotland is gently ambivalent on the subject - ministers may celebrate gay marriage, but are not required to as part of their job). There may be a few fringe Jewish and other groups too - but nothing with serious numbers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_same-sex_marriage
I think wanting a leader of a party to have personal opinions that align with the policy of the party on every significant issue is a pretty reasonable expectation
really - I mean clearly there’s an issue if they disagree on some fundamentals but what if they were fairly relaxed on nuclear weapons but the party is not (or indeed does that mean Douglas Ross has to believe they are fundamentally a great idea because the tories support them?), or say Fracking - could a party leader buy an argument that it’s a necessary evil in the short term and if we are going to frack might as well be on our own doorstep but follow a party line that not in Scotland? What should a leader do if they decide over time that a policy is actually a bit wonky but the party has had a firm position on it (say Rishi wanted to argue something same around Immigration) must they resign as leader to challenge the party mantra?
FWIW as a fairly convinced atheist and more importantly secularist I really would much rather the leader of the country was able to make rational decisions using evidence than baseless beliefs passed on from a convincing orator. On the other hand a politician who is quite upfront about what she actually thinks, rather than trying to manage a popularist profile is rather pleasing. Her rationale for going to that church because it is the closest was as good as any other justification (although I don’t think that will be enough “carbon footprint” argument to get her back in with the greens!). Let’s face it though, if she does get elected, no politician in history will be as intently studied on how she votes/influences/pushes on direction of policy as she will be - so I’m not sure the “liberal” agenda will suffer under her anymore than under a different leader who is just trying to pander to the right wing voters. Indeed, if she turns out to be a good leader she might actually bring some of the crazies to a “it doesn’t hurt you so get over it” middle ground.
I agree with your basic point poly but being for discrimination based on sexual orientation is rather fundamental is it not?
On the liberal agenda
she has already said she does not back trans rights. She is firmly against assisted dying. She is against equal treatment of gay folk. ( Ok assisted dying should be and will be a conscience vote and I doubt many folk are as concerned about that as me)
Regardless of how you view these issues i cannot see the coalition with the greens surviving her being elected and I do not think the left of the SNP can go along with her.
the leader of the party is highly influential in what policies will be followed. Would the GRA have been pushed thru under Salmond?
One of the big reasons I am really gutted by Sturgeons resignation is we ( the assisted dying campaign) had got her to change her mind from a firm no to maybe yes. the prospect of a leader who is firmly against it at such a fundamental level upsets me
Her rationale for going to that church because it is the closest was as good as any other justification
In which case why does she hold their fundamentalist beliefs so strongly? None of this bible as allegory pick and chose stuff you get from the CoS
Question from the South of England.
Will the SNP survive the departure of the Sturgeon? From where I sit in (currently a very damp) SE of England it appears that the SNP could implode. The SNP is a very broad church, all of whom have the goal of an independent Scotland. To keep all the different factions in line has required a high degree of central control, firstly through Salmond and then through Sturgeon. Without either of those at the helm of the party, will any of the candidates be able to keep the SNP together?
Obviously there is no reasonable chance of a vote for independence in the short or medium term. So with the central tenet of the SNP not a realistic target, will the party splinter into its factions? And if so (or not) is this good or bad for Scotland.
IMO its certainly possible. the tensions between the right and left of the party and the gradualists V independence now folk have been simmering away for a while. Sturgeon going and the leadership hustings have rather brought that into the open. Sturgeon took the party to the left and this is resented by a lot of the old guard. There is also an urban v rural split as well which is close to the right / left split.
There is also the way that all political parties in power seem to run out of steam after 10 years or so and also they then get folk who do not believe in the core tenets of the party joining the party to gain power or to push their hobby horse thru.
I think there certainly is potential for a split especially if Forbes wins the election. I just do not see how the lefty socially liberal members and activists could stay in the party under her and I think that is a significant part of their base and their activists.
I suspect that the SNP will lose seats after the next holyrood election - and will be replaced in government by a labour / tory coaltion Neither labour or tories have a snowflakes chance of a majority and if there is no majority as is likely they will do this to freeze out the SNP as they have done on multiple councils.
Medium term I don't think it would do the SNP harm to spend some time in opposition especially to a labour / tory cioaltion
However the longer we wait for independence the worse it is for the country and a labour / tory coalition running holyrood would be a disaster
the interests of the SNP do not always align with the interests of the country
Obviously there is no reasonable chance of a vote for independence in the short or medium term.
I don't know if that's true. The world has seen wackier and faster change recently - see Trump and Brexit. The Scottish independence movement has been around in its modern form for 40-50 years, and is a mainstream (if not majority) political position in Scotland. It wouldn't be the craziest thing to happen.
So with the central tenet of the SNP not a realistic target, will the party splinter into its factions?
I doubt it. Parties always have factions. The SNP stuck together when it was much less popular than it was now. And the SNP is a modern, European, social democratic party - it has a full policy platform beyond independence. It's not just a single issue party or pressure group.
But then again, not long ago you'd have said "well of course Labour will be the first or second party in Scotland" or "the Lib Dems will be the swing party for the UK", and what happened to them...?
I wouldn't like to predict the outcome. In TJs view a Forbes/Regan leadership would see an exodus of activists. Another view is that the 50,000 who've left the party are the activists and they might be tempted to return.
Perfectly possible. 50 000 is a lot of members to lose.
I'm clearly only guessing from limited knowledge.
Hang on - Forbes is a "gradualist" as well is she not. I seem to remember an "Independence is years away" quote
I don't think its just activists who would leave. I think a Forbes leadership would kill the coalition with the greens and MSPs and MPs would leave.
But obviously its just my view from where I sit and thats not particularly close to what is going on in the SNP
A couple of my SNP voting friends have said the would never vote SNP while Forbes was leader
really
Yes, really.
The key word I used was 'significant'. Now, if you viewed the SNP as a single issue (independence) party I guess you could make the case that the stuff she is out of step with is not 'significant'. But I'd cast the SNP of the best part of a generation as also a progressive party. And I'd say her conflictions with party policy are 'significantly' at odds with those of a progressive party.
"However the longer we wait for independence the worse it is for the country"
I disagree...I'd like to see if a Labour led Scottish Parliament could deliver ferries on time, on budget and without corruption. I'd like to see improvements in the NHS, schools, crime, health statistics etc. I have a begrudging respect for Sturgeon but she turned Scotland into a binary state of yes/no on independence. Too little scrutiny on the SNP performance on these and other issues. And as soon as the dictatorship is gone there are some truths spoken by Forbes on the SNP performance on such issues. Not that I'm a fan of her or beliefs. So I'd like to see Labour (coalition or not, definitely not with the Tories!) make a better fist of actually running the country!
Err, you really don’t get this “faith” thing at all, do you? What sort of secular argument are you expecting to hear? It’s not like she can come up with physical proof of her God.
I get faith. It's delegating your opinions to a higher power.
However, if you want to be FM, you can't delegate your opinions to someone else. You have to be able to justify your opinions on their own merit. Not by hide behind, 'Because my religion says...'
If you want to be FM, you are responsible for your opinions. Not your church.
The only way I can see labour getting to run it is in coalition with the tories, I believe thats the most likely option after the next holyrood election
I do not see labour getting enough seats even to be the biggest party or rule in coaltion with the lib dems
Err, you really don’t get this “faith” thing at all, do you? What sort of secular argument are you expecting to hear? It’s not like she can come up with physical proof of her God.
[s]I get faith. It’s delegating your opinions to a higher power.[/s]
[s]However, if you want to be FM, you can’t delegate your opinions to someone else. You have to be able to justify your opinions on their own merit. Not by hide behind, ‘Because my religion says…’[/s]
[s]If you want to be FM, you are responsible for your opinions. [/s]No[s]t your church.[/s]
It's her opinion, informed by her beliefs.
Eh up
this thread has the lot. Politics, religion and sexual equality. Should be banned 🙂
if you want to be FM, you can’t delegate your opinions to someone else. You have to be able to justify your opinions on their own merit. Not by hide behind, ‘Because my religion says…’
Her religious opinions are completely stupid imo. However, if her answer to your question is "because God said so", then it's up to you not to vote for her. It's not for her to scrape together a secular justification for her religous views.
Im interested in this On what basis? ( not questioning your judgement – looking for information)
On the basis that I've yet to hear/see any Unionist media/shill have a pop at her, unlike what I've heard/seen about Yousaf and Regan.
The key to independence is that at the next GE for Scotland the SNP keeps it's MP numbers, irrelevant what occurs south of the border - otherwise it's a lost cause and TBH we might as well get rid of Holyrood as it'll be further undermined whenever the UK Govt decides it wants to. Therefore electing someone who's "safe" is the better option.
Ta
It’s her opinion, informed by her beliefs.
Yes, and that's fine of she wants to bore people in the pub about how she would fix all Scotland's problems if only she was in charge.
But she's not running for local pub bore. She's running for FM and ideally the standards should be a bit higher.
