@kelvin voting rights are automatic with GMB, you have to specifically opt out, I believe this is also the case for Unite.
You must surely be aware that many Free Church members work on Sundays? Do you believe that the hospitals, fire services, police, social workers etc have some sort of religious bar on employment?
I guess some do but I've never really been aware of the rules. Do you just get to decide yourself if you've got an exemption or does someone need to tell you it's OK?
Do you get a single exception granted on a case by case basis or is it time limited? Do you have to apply for a new exemption each month?
On an unrelated note, if Kate's husband decided he really didn't like something, could he tell Kate to not do it? Isn't she obliged to obey him no matter what?
Or is that one of those things she can get exceptions for? Again, is this case by case or time limited?
These might sound like pedantic questions but when you've got someone who refuses to engage in debate on subjects her church has already ruled on, it's actually quite important to know exactly what other rules are going to be rigidly applied and which can be safely ignored.
Maybe it's best just to not elect religious fundamentalists for this very reason. You shouldn't have to have an intricate knowledge of obscure cults to know whether your FM is going to be available to do the job or not.
voting rights are automatic with GMB, you have to specifically opt out
https://www.gmbnorthwest.co.uk/daily-update/labour-party-affiliated-supporter-0
Dear Member, As a GMB member, you have the right to vote in the contest to choose the next leader of the Labour Party, but to do this you have to register and become an official ‘Labour Party affiliated supporter’.
GMB already pays a political levy for all our affiliated members, so there is no cost to becoming a supporter. The only action required is for you to sign a form (or sign up online) saying you agree with the aims of the Labour Party and giving us permission to pass your details to them.
Members of the GMB, who pay the political levy can vote in the forthcoming Labour Leader and Deputy Leader contests, whether they are individual members of the Labour Party or not.
As an affiliated union to the Labour Party, GMB members have the right to vote in these elections, which will take place between now and April.
It is very easy to register for a vote. Just follow the link below and register as an affiliated supporter of the Labour Party, this is free for anybody who pays the GMB political levy.
Do this as soon as possible but no later than 5.00pm on 3rd February January 2020.
This election is crucial for the direction of the Labour Party over the next five years as they look to hold the Tory government to account as an effective opposition both in Parliament and the country and in seeking to reconnect with the voters they lost at the General Election in December.
Have your say and register now.
Labour Leadership Election 2020
Anyway, this is all a distraction.... the point is that the turnout at the SNP leadership election is pretty much inline with other parties, nothing odd about it... higher than the LibDem member turnout, higher than the Labour party turnout, lower than the Conservative party turnout.
I think the point is that turnout for a leadership contest in a political party is not affected in the same as turnout for a general election.
The two make a poor comparison, less than honest party membership figures, and as poly points out party disorganisation, can affect leadership turnouts. As can other considerations such as weather.
@kelvin I don't remember signing up. Obviously I did because I've voted in 3 leadership elections but I would have sworn it was automatic. Oh well...
The Trade Union Act 2016 changed the status quo.
Tory governments love interfering in the internal affairs of what are among the most democratic institutions in the UK.
Keir Starmer has promised to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, but it's anyone's guess whether he means it or not.
Wasn’t that to do with opting in to the political budget of your union, rather than auto enrolment and a sometimes hard to chase down opt out?
Labour leadership contest rules were and are set by Labour. The Labour Party rule around union members registering to vote for the party leader was to do with making sure it was “one member one vote”, rather than those who are members of an affiliate and also direct members getting multiple votes. Nothing to do with the government act, an internal party measure.
Moving away further from the topic of Nicola Sturgeon but I think this covers the points raised by squirrelking:
Maybe it’s best just to not elect religious fundamentalists for this very reason. You shouldn’t have to have an intricate knowledge of obscure cults to know whether your FM is going to be available to do the job or not.
As an aside, former Republican VP candidate Joe Lieberman (who as an observant Jew was quite keen on the sabbath) had a self-deprecating joke on the campaign trail that he would work tirelessly 24/6 for the USA.
As an aside to an aside, in this time of work-life balance, burnout and Finnish PMs resigning because they are too depressed - is working 7 days a week such a good thing? Don't we want a government that doesn't pivot around one person?
Admittedly I'd prefer it if the leader spent their day off not listening to lectures on the evil of clothing made from mixed textiles, or however religious fundamentalists spent their time...
Her faith wasn’t a problem. Her opinions were (of course, her opinions came from her faith but an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse).
id suggest you go back and listen to her interviews again. She frequently referred to the opinions as being those of her faith (it’s a get out card for having stupid unjustifiable opinions).
Also, if anything happened on Sunday morning it would be Monday before she could do anything about it and FMs have to always be on call. Or does the unbreakable rigidity of her faith only apply to certain matters?
well you can create false arguments, call them a cult, and her a religious fundamentalist all you want but it mostly makes you look like a petty minded person who hasn’t bothered to understand how the religious and cultural values of a significant minority of Scotland works! Let’s be clear the new FM is currently eating only in the hours of darkness because he too follows a religion. Does that seem the best way to fuel up for having just taken on a mammoth job?
I will be 100% clear, given the option I will always pick the candidate to lead the country who is areligous. It’s bizarre to me that having strong religious views and making it to leader of a political party are not almost mutually exclusive. BUT I won’t call a long established church a cult just because I don’t understand it; I won’t make up nonsense that no free-church member can work Sundays; and I will not criticise people for being honest about where their values come from.
After the scooter clip was tweeted Yousaf moaned there was no need for the clip to have been released.
Followed shortly afterwards by someone pointing out that Humsa had tweeted a clip of Douglas Ross falling over
Should religion disqualify someone from being an MSP? Of course not. However for me and for many others someone who is unable to keep their religion and their duties as a MSP / Minister / FM separate is not someone I want running things. I want rational decision making not decisions based on faith. So in Forbes case finance is OK IMO, but FM or health would not be.
A significant minority of the people of Scotland are religious. Religion needs to have its place in civic society much as I wish it did not.
The free church is pretty fundamentalist compared to CoS
well you can create false arguments, call them a cult, and her a religious fundamentalist all you want but it mostly makes you look like a petty minded person who hasn’t bothered to understand how the religious and cultural values of a significant minority of Scotland works!
Well, you can insult me because you can't put together a coherent argument all you want but it won't change my questions (the ones I asked on the previous page).
Feel free to educate me. I asked Scotroutes already but he hasn't replied.
1. What are Forbes' restrictions regarding working on Sunday. Does she need to ask someone else for permission or can she self-certify?
Or, if she is simply going to put her faith to one side, why can she do this with this issue but not ones relating to gay marriage, etc?
2. To what extent is she required to obey her husband? If her husband tells her to pursue a certain policy, is she required to do it?
And again, if she is allowed to ignore this aspect of her faith, why is she required to follow others?
These are not false arguments. She has categorically said that she is required to follow her faith. Therefore, we have to know if we are voting for her as FM or are we voting for a combination of her, her husband, her minister, and anyone else who has authority over her, as FM.
Let’s be clear the new FM is currently eating only in the hours of darkness because he too follows a religion. Does that seem the best way to fuel up for having just taken on a mammoth job?
I am getting so sick of this racist false equivalence made between the two. Yes, Yousaf is a Muslim. He is not, however, a fundamentalist. He has never said the job will come 2nd to his faith and he has, in fact, made several statements that have turned much of the Muslim community against him. There's a reason Muslim leaders were supporting Forbes and not him.
If Yousaf is fasting I have heard nothing to say he wouldn't immediately stop if it any way interfered with the job.
Your assumptions and false equivalence are nothing but racism.
1. What are Forbes’ restrictions regarding working on Sunday. Does she need to ask someone else for permission or can she self-certify?
there usually is a general dispensation for essential work. I don't know the wee frees doctrine in detail but thats the norm
Or, if she is simply going to put her faith to one side, why can she do this with this issue but not ones relating to gay marriage, etc?
Thus this is a moot point
2. To what extent is she required to obey her husband? If her husband tells her to pursue a certain policy, is she required to do it?
Is this in the doctrine? I thought the bible said respect? Got a source for that claim?
And again, if she is allowed to ignore this aspect of her faith, why is she required to follow others?
Again - moot point
I agree with the basic thrust of your argument but you need to base it on reality . for me the red line is around equality and assisted dying. No need to invent stuff 🙂
Anyway - she is off to sulk on the back benches having been slapped by a wet fish from Yousaf 🙂 So none of this really matters
Next SNP conference should be fun
Is this in the doctrine? I thought the bible said respect? Got a source for that claim?
Tough reading but knock yourself out.
Tough reading but knock yourself out.
I was going to link to that rather delightful read. Grim indeed.
However, in defence of Forbes - this is a woman who was at the top table of government and was going for the very top job. That in itself is a pretty big indicator that her personal faith was not rigidly aligned to what's written there.
On the fundamentalist issue, I think we sometimes need to be careful to normalise what we know well and demonize what we don't. Most of us know members of the free church - it (and it's members) are all around us. We brush it off as weird and hard to fathom but leave it at that....because we've know it all our lives. Islam is relatively 'new' to many of us personally (clearly it's not new as a faith) or out of our sphere of normality so is easier to label as having a fundamentalist fringe.
Beyond that (and again this is maybe me being more comfortable with what I know) I'd call the free churches as ultra conservative rather than fundamental - it's maybe a nuanced difference. It broke away to remain just that and has by and large kept that moral stand point. It's an alien world amongst us as far as I'm concerned by as TJ says despite my personal feelings it's a real thing for a sizable minority of my fellow Scots so needs to be taken into account and given a place. Just maybe not the FM gig.
That in itself is a pretty big indicator that her personal faith was not rigidly aligned to what’s written there.
That's true.
But then that raises the question, if she can ignore some parts of her faith why is she then required to rigidly adhere to others?
We need to know which parts are flexible and which parts are rigid.
Ouchy
Ta Bruce
Two of my office's most ardent independent supports just had a brief conversation about this. Apparently Yousaf's election is a "****ing disaster" and at least one of the two has now "pretty much given up on the lot of them".
Early by election? Thatshould test the new regime.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/humza-faces-nightmare-start-as-covid-ferrier-by-election-looms/
The Yousaf terror has begun...
> stops reading article there <
But then that raises the question, if she can ignore some parts of her faith why is she then required to rigidly adhere to others?
We need to know which parts are flexible and which parts are rigid.
Given she is now a backbench MSP you can probably live without knowing! I assume you will be going round all MSPs and especially the new cabinet and FM asking the same question? Because she's by no means the only religious person in parliament. I actually thought she was quite clear that how she lives HER life was governed by HER faith and she had no desire to impose that on anyone else. Its not how I would chose to live my life, but then I would neither go hungry from dawn to dusk nor avoid certain foods because of religion either and nobody seems to be asking Humza why those are bits he does and others he's more flexible about?
Early by election? Thatshould test the new regime.
Will it? I mean it's Rutherglen - it's a classic Labour stronghold. It's only in recent times that it's been swapped between SNP and Labour. I think unless it was a spectacular loss the SNP can shrug it off. I'd be more concerned if I was Labour because if they don't win it that would be a big blow. And that assumes "they" can find ~10K people in the constituency who care enough to go through with the petition.
Given she is now a backbench MSP you can probably live without knowing!
And if she decides to stick to the backbenches or roles where her faith won't cause a conflict of interest then none of us need worry.
However, I would be surprised if this is the last time we hear her name and the FM job mentioned in the same breath.
and nobody seems to be asking Humza why those are bits he does and others he’s more flexible about?
BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER SAID HIS FAITH IS GOING TO INTERFERE WITH HIS JOB!
****s sake, how many times does it have to be said?!
Just because he is Muslim doesn't mean he is a fundamentalist and to suggest it does (because everyone knows all Muslims are fundamentalists) is ****ing racist.
The 14 day limit is to send a Notice of Intended Prosecution.
https://kangandco.co.uk/2023/01/27/seat-belt-mobile-phone-offences-caught-on-camera-2/
poly Free Member
Will it? I mean it’s Rutherglen – it’s a classic Labour stronghold. It’s only in recent times that it’s been swapped between SNP and Labour. I think unless it was a spectacular loss the SNP can shrug it off. I’d be more concerned if I was Labour because if they don’t win it that would be a big blow. And that assumes “they” can find ~10K people in the constituency who care enough to go through with the petition.
I've a good friend who lives in Rutherglen. Apparently Margaret Ferrier's constituency office has been trying to hire staff for some time now and has been completely unable to persuade anyone to work for her, and he's described her as basically doing no work for the constituency so I don't think she's very popular at all there. I recall he was very frustrated that her trial didn't result in anything that could trigger a recall either. So while it is a very small sample size and anecdotal evidence I'd say there's at least a bit of a desire within Rutherglen to see her recalled.
Allegedly her main goal since this all came up is to hang on until the next general election as that'd be when she qualifies for an MP's pension.
BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER SAID HIS FAITH IS GOING TO INTERFERE WITH HIS JOB!
* sake, how many times does it have to be said?!
Just because he is Muslim doesn’t mean he is a fundamentalist and to suggest it does (because everyone knows all Muslims are fundamentalists) is * racist.
But there's a list of people who said it DID affect his ability to vote on a contentious issue. I wouldn't describe either of them as Fundamentalist. I'd take a look in the mirror before throwing the word racist around. Your prejudice against the Free Church of Scotland is clear from the thread.
Just as an aside, BruceWee's link about the 'authority of husbands' comes from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Kate Forbes is a member of the Free Church of Scotland which is a different denomination and, ironically, seceded from the CofS over the issue of the separation between church and state. As someone who studied theology in the dim and distant past, there are a number of questions it would be interesting to ask Kate Forbes around this issue, but spurious pish about 'headship', based around incoherent arguments about the meaning of the Greek word 'kephale', probably wouldn't feature on the list.
Allegedly her main goal since this all came up is to hang on until the next general election as that’d be when she qualifies for an MP’s pension.
Ah OK, if that's well known I can imagine people will want her out.
But there’s a list of people who said it DID affect his ability to vote on a contentious issue.
I'd imagine there are. But what exactly has HE said?
If you don't want to be told what you're saying is racist stop saying he must be a fundamentalist because he is Muslim.
Just because racists are saying something doesn't mean you have to repeat it as fact. We've already had someone posting links from racists (although unintentionally) about him on the previous page.
Just as an aside, BruceWee’s link about the ‘authority of husbands’ comes from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
Oops. Although in my defense, Presbyterians seem to be worse than Socialists for splitting.
Can you give us the crib notes on whether they are better, worse, or about the same when compared to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland?
poly
Free MemberBut there’s a list of people who said it DID affect his ability to vote on a contentious issue.
Presuming you mean missing the vote on gay marriage? It's been done I think, but he did vote for it in the first reading, he vocally supported it in campaigning, and in the end missed a vote where the final outcome was absolutely certain- it went 105:18 aye so his presence wasn't needed. And the fact that this is the best people could come up with, from 9 years ago, tells a story too. You have to want it to be true.
The key thing is that when challenged, he says he will not allow his "personal faith to be the basis of legislation", plain and simple. He can point to a much better track record for that than his critics can against, including the recent gender bill.
Whereas Forbes comes out with absolute word salad, and also says she can't see any issue with a potential SNP leader refusing to challenge the UK government's blocking of Scotland's democratically passed gender reforms. It's incomparable. "I'm not a dictator" but when my party and my parliament vote in favour of something and westminster blocks it I'll let it pass, even though it's also a great opportunity to score political points for independence, with no downsides. That's "I will not lead where my party and my voters want to go"
Frankly it's mostly like Tim Farron, it's not just the position she'd take, it's how she fudged talking about it. If she'd managed a coherent response like, say, "Personally I don't believe in it but that's just my personal opinion, as leader it's my job to represent my party" or something, rather than... christ almighty... "I think we get into very dangerous territory when we say that certain public offices are barred to certain minority groups.", trying to make herself as a poor oppressed christian victim.
If you don’t want to be told what you’re saying is racist stop saying he must be a fundamentalist because he is Muslim.
If you find a single post I've ever made that said Humza was a fundamentalist I will apologise.
Can you give us the crib notes on whether they are better, worse, or about the same when compared to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland?
There's a wee diagram here - which shows the splits and mergers. Better/worse suggests you have a preconceived notion about good/bad - given you didn't even know which organisation you were labelling as fundamentalist, and you were asking who she needs to get permission from to work a Sunday, called them a cult etc, I'm not sure you are entering the debate with an open mind. You are the one with the prejudice.
FWIW I consider all religions to be fundamentally a bad idea. If it were up to me active participation in any religion would clearly show you to be too easily misled and exclude you from high office. Its not up to me, and despite TJ's claim that most people in Scotland are not religious the Census data disagrees (Its often misquoted because more people say no religion than any individual religion, but the total of all religions is still significantly greater than no-religion) so I guess its quite likely that our politicians will have some sort of religious beliefs for some time. I'm not sure it makes sense to think of some flavours or religion as being better/worse than others.
despite TJ’s claim that most people in Scotland are not religious the Census data disagrees (Its often misquoted because more people say no religion than any individual religion, but the total of all religions is still significantly greater than no-religion)
That includes all the folk who say CoS (or something else) despite not having been in one since a kid does it not? Actually practicing god botherers are a minority from stuff I have seen. Numbers have been changing as well.
If you find a single post I’ve ever made that said Humza was a fundamentalist I will apologise
Oh yeah, you weren't calling him a fundamentalist. You were just saying that there are people who suggest that he is a fundamentalist. Sort of like when Trump says, 'People are saying...'
Good job on the plausible deniability. No need to apologise, then.
You are the one with the prejudice.
Yep, I am 100% intolerant towards intolerant organisations. And Kate Forbes is a member of an intolerant organisation and she has said that the views of her intolerant organisation are going to affect her decisions as FM.
Yousaf, on the other hand, has gone out of his way to stress that his membership of an intolerant organisation is not going to affect his decisions as FM, to the point where leaders of his intolerant organisation said they weren't supporting him and they actually preferred Kate Forbes (can't think why, can you?).
Anyway, yes, there are religions that are better and worse. The link I posted was clearly to one of the worse ones.
The Free Church of Scotland doesn't seem as bad in comparison, no?
Presuming you mean missing the vote on gay marriage? It’s been done I think, but he did vote for it in the first reading, he vocally supported it in campaigning, and in the end missed a vote where the final outcome was absolutely certain- it went 105:18 aye so his presence wasn’t needed. And the fact that this is the best people could come up with, from 9 years ago, tells a story too. You have to want it to be true.
That was pretty much my initial reaction. BUT some of those reports said he was "told" not to go to the vote by the Mosque. I don't know if they are true, but if you are an MSP and told / strongly hinted at / nudged by your religious leaders not to do something that is a problem for me.
The key thing is that when challenged, he says he will not allow his “personal faith to be the basis of legislation”, plain and simple. He can point to a much better track record for that than his critics can against, including the recent gender bill.
I agree his backing of the GRR is a sign he's got some independent thought (although I don't actually know what Islam's interpretation of the Bill is)
Whereas Forbes comes out with absolute word salad, and also says she can’t see any issue with a potential SNP leader refusing to challenge the UK government’s blocking of Scotland’s democratically passed gender reforms. It’s incomparable. “I’m not a dictator” but when my party and my parliament vote in favour of something and westminster blocks it I’ll let it pass, even though it’s also a great opportunity to score political points for independence, with no downsides. That’s “I will not lead where my party and my voters want to go”
I don't think you have to be religious to have hesitations about the GRR though! Its only a good opportunity to score points if you think you'll win. Alternatively, it would be an opportunity for her to show that "fighting" Westminster doesn't need to be about court cases, point scoring, and speeches to those who already want Indy, but could be about finding conciliation and working through fine details to get a bill both sides were happy with - skills which would inevitably be useful in an independence settlement. Humza will go fight them on this and all sides Indy/Union GRR/no-GRR will simply end up more entrenched in their views.
Frankly it’s mostly like Tim Farron, it’s not just the position she’d take, it’s how she fudged talking about it. If she’d managed a coherent response like, say, “Personally I don’t believe in it but that’s just my personal opinion, as leader it’s my job to represent my party” or something, rather than… christ almighty… “I think we get into very dangerous territory when we say that certain public offices are barred to certain minority groups.”, trying to make herself as a poor oppressed christian victim.
Yeah I think I said something similar up there - she lost it on this, and her inability to communicate it in a way that people who aren't as religious as she is could understand. Her interviews on this stuff felt like I was watching some Sunday morning spiritual TV waffle not debating the leader of a country. I'm not upset that she didn't get elected, I'm upset that in a country of 5 million people the best we could do was those three - and don't get me wrong the leaders of the opposition are no better.
That was pretty much my initial reaction. BUT some of those reports said he was “told” not to go to the vote by the Mosque. I don’t know if they are true, but if you are an MSP and told / strongly hinted at / nudged by your religious leaders not to do something that is a problem for me.
And yet Muslim leaders in Scotland chose NOT to support the potential first ever Muslim FM and instead praised his Christian rival. And it's still not good enough for you?
I said earlier, it wouldn't surprise me if Yousaf was worried about losing the support of the Muslim community at that point and took the political (not faith based) decision to miss the vote.
At the time I'd imagine losing the support of the Muslim community could well have meant the end of his political career and we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
Plenty Christian politicians go to church but you wouldn't necessarily describe them as 'religious'. Their religion doesn't define them. It seems that Muslims aren't given the same benefit of the doubt.
I’m upset that in a country of 5 million people the best we could do was those three – and don’t get me wrong the leaders of the opposition are no better.
Indeed. But the UK has 10 times the populus and it came up with....Liz Truss!
In a post Sturgeon era, Sarwar would be for me the best of the rest. In fact labour would feel the right choice if it was not for independence. If Scottish Labour could find a way to be less categorical on that issue a think a lot of SNP voters could find themselves floating that way.
In a post Sturgeon era, Sarwar would be for me the best of the rest. In fact labour would feel the right choice if it was not for independence. If Scottish Labour could find a way to be less categorical on that issue a think a lot of SNP voters could find themselves floating that way.
What I'd really like to see is Scottish Labour break from Westminster.
From there I think they should lay out a clear plan for complete UK constitutional reform.
Then they say, 'Unless these reforms are enacted, we will begin campaigning for and legislating for Independence.'
This, 'Union no matter what' and subservience to WM is not doing them (or us) any good. I think showing that they are not wedded to either the Union or indy but willing to act in Scotland's best interests no matter what could be a vote winner.
I’d imagine there are. But what exactly has HE said?
What people do is generally more interesting than what they say.
For example Johnson claimed he would die in a ditch rather than support the heathrow expansion but when it came time to vote found he had urgent business elsewhere.
Interesting reading above but…….Shona Robison as finance secretary???, and losing Ivan McKee who had actual engineering/business experience is just bloody stupid and vindictive.
I’m not sure it makes sense to think of some flavours or religion as being better/worse than others.
I dunno, man, I think I'd rather live under the modern Church of Scotland than under, say, Haredi Judaism, Wahhabi Islam, or the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.
One question you might like to ask to judge the goodness/badness of religions is "how enthusiastic would the adherents of this religion be about the execution of consenting adults for their sexual practices?". I think that would very quickly lead you to a rough league table of how good or bad some flavours of religion are.
but willing to act in Scotland’s best interests no matter what
This is starting from a nationalist premise - that the primary unit of identification and loyalty is the nation. That has never been the core belief of the labour (small L) movement. If they believed that, they'd be nationalists. If they believed that independence were the best tool for achieving their core beliefs, they'd be republicans already!
But Scottish independence now, after Brexit, just promises Brexit on steroids, at great harm to ordinary people and workers. You'd be mad to support it.
