Forbes believes that it is acceptable for the state to discriminate against people based on the persons sexual orientation.

Thats not and never will be acceptable to me

Both ROS and ONS say the Scottish/English data is not directly comparable and requires extreme caution to interpret.

Rly? Because the report that is the source of the data explicitly says

2. ‘Drug-misuse deaths’ is the terminology used by the NRS in their ‘Drug-related deaths in Scotland’ statistical publication and is consistent with the terminology used in other parts of the UK. The term ‘misuse’ is seen by some as stigmatizing. The Scottish Government aims to use neutral language where possible unless referencing an official title, technically defined term or policy from a different organisation.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-mission-drugs-annual-monitoring-report-2022-2023/pages/14/

This is the same definition and source from which the same data linked throughout above comes from. Nothing new.

increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.

Source for this claim…?

The proportion of income moving from rUK to Scotland was around 0.08 per cent, while the proportion of income moving from Scotland to the rest of the UK was 0.9 per cent.

The slight increase in the number of higher taxpayers moving out of Scotland in 2018-19 is estimated to have resulted in £61m in tax receipts going to the UK Government instead of the Scottish Government.

But the changing pattern of migration between 2019-20 and 2021-22 resulted in overall net positive income movement to Scotland.

In 2021-22, the most recent year of available data, £200 million in additional taxable income was brought into Scotland.

But the HMRC study says it could not draw “definitive conclusions” on whether the reason for the migration trend is tax difference.

“We cannot observe the counterfactual situation where tax divergence did not occur, we cannot conclude the policy change had no effect,” it said.

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,net-taxpayer-migration-to-scotland-increases-since-introduction-of-scottish-income-tax-rates

grimepFree Member
I see the SNP’s rabidly socialist policy of increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.

Daily Mail headline by any chance?

We came from England, both high/highest rate taxpayers but we’ve never been asked whether it was for the taxes, benefits or the weather 🙂

Correlation vs Causation, look it up.

I chose to live in a highly taxed location in a highly taxed country. I’d happily pay even more tax but others wouldn’t so that might not be productive. Junior paid no university fees and the free schools were great. The health service still works though it is being stressed by the boomer demographic reaching peak care reqirements. There are great public pools, ski resorts, sports fascilities, theaters, heeitage sites… .

These are how I measure things not on how many individuals get hooked on drink and drugs, or choose an unhealthy diet. So Scotland scores quite well and better than England on things that matter to me.

So the state of the UK economy won’t impact your vote at all?

So you support Brexit, increasing the National Debt by +£300 million PER DAY, love that Tory donors got rich off PPE corruption, adore paying ever higher taxes for poorer public services etc etc?

I’ve literally no idea how you arrived at this response. You sure you haven’t read something into my post that actually isnt there?

“Rabidly socialist”

Did someone get confused and think they were auditioning for GB News 😂

Grimep

I see the SNP’s rabidly socialist policy of increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.

Taking more money from people who have earned more is a socialist policy that we have seen produce this exact same outcome decade after decade all over the world.

Are the SNP simply ignorant of history, willfully inept, or just unable to break out of the socialist mindset?

Ha.ha……..we have a comedian in the making, needs a fair bit of work but crack on….

Forbes believes that it is acceptable for the state to discriminate against people based on the persons sexual orientation.

That would be discriminstion against a protected characteristic? Much the same as your discrimination against her right to religious beliefs.

“Are the SNP simply ignorant of history, willfully inept, or just unable to break out of the socialist mindset?”

I think the historical record of the past 40 years has made it pretty plain where neo liberalism leads.   Can we recover? Or will the vast wealth accumulated over these years being used against us be too much to resist.

PCA – here’s what the NRS say: https://blog.nrscotland.gov.uk/2023/08/22/what-actually-counts-as-a-drug-death/ and the ONS: https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/comparability-of-drug-related-death-statistics-across-the-united-kingdom/ nobody seems to believe that Scotland is not worse than England but we don’t collect the same data or report in the same way so have to use a different metric for intra-country comparison from we do for everything else – and we can’t look deeper to see if the English data is driven by different drugs etc.

I see the SNP’s rabidly socialist policy of increasing the top tax rate has resulted in the better off moving south of the border and the overall tax take decreasing.

Taking more money from people who have earned more is a socialist policy that we have seen produce this exact same outcome decade after decade all over the world.

Are the SNP simply ignorant of history, willfully inept, or just unable to break out of the socialist mindset?

It is interesting how you use socialist as an insult whilst many people in Scotland would see it as something to aspire towards.  I know a lot of people who live in Scotland who will fall into the category of paying more tax than they would if they lived in England.   They come from a wide range of political perspectives.  I can’t remember any saying they were considering moving because of tax policy.  I can only think of two who’ve actually moved to england since the difference started…  one of them was very unhappy that his children were now going to have to pay more in university fees and was trying to persuade his employer (who wanted him to move) to cover that cost…

Whichever definition is used, it remains the case that Scotland has a much higher drug death rate than anywhere else in the UK. The scale of the difference under either definition highlights that differences in production of the statistics do not explain the gap.

What actually counts as a drug death?

But the changing pattern of migration between 2019-20 and 2021-22 resulted in overall net positive income movement to Scotland.

There’s been huge net immigration from outside the EU into the UK since Brexit. Rrelatively few immigrants to the UK move to Scotland (it has 8.2% of the population but only 4% of non-EU immigrants). But still you could easily have a situation in which the relatively small number of Scotland-quitting high earners is outbalanced by a larger group of Scotland-arrivers, and net income tax take would increase. Or many other scenarios…

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/where-do-migrants-live-in-the-uk/

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/

That would be discriminstion against a protected characteristic? Much the same as your discrimination against her right to religious beliefs.

Nobody is saying her religious beliefs means she is not allowed to do the job.

The problems is when someone’s religious beliefs prevent them from doing the job, and is there is no reasonable workaround that allows them to follow the rules of their faith and still do the job.  In this case, she has said she won’t be able to do the job because her religious beliefs mean she cannot consider certain issues objectively.  She cannot reasonably argue for or against certain issues because she has already admitted her positions come from her faith and therefore she cannot be persuaded otherwise no matter what arguments or evidence is presented to her.

Like I said, a lot was made of Yousaf’s religious beliefs but at no point did he ever suggest his faith would influence his decisions.

And even then, no one is saying that she isn’t allowed to stand.  Just that they won’t vote for her and would advise others not to vote for her because, as she has said herself, her religious beliefs mean she cannot be objective in all matters.

Not a fan of Forbes, but didn’t she just say she couldn’t vote for the gender recognition reform bill, not sure i’ve ever heard her say she couldn’t do the job because of her religious beliefs?

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.”

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-02-21/kate-forbes-says-campaign-not-over-after-gay-marriage-views-prompt-backlash

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.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23489546.humza-yousaf-faces-questions-missed-gay-marriage-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.

I don’t think anyone is arguing Forbes should be barred from running for leadership of the party or anything else.

Just saying we aren’t going to vote for her.

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”.

https://archive.is/xnPDq

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 ?