[ritchiebaby]

I respect you and jim having different views to mine, but in defence of my point of view, I am still convinced that she should still be allowed to contest the leadership without the condemnation. If SNP members feel she is not suitable, then they don't vote for her, as will undoubtedly happen.

She has never said she wants to govern by religious belief and I would hope that the SNP chooses policy, not her. It's a sad fact of life nowadays that personality wins over policy every time.

I am interested in your mention of "right-wing Christians". Can someone opposing some of the examples you mention not be left-wing?

Anyway, I've had my say on the Kate Forbes saga 4 times now and I feel that's enough for anyone.

[St Charles Owl]

I fully respect her choice of faith and she did say she would not allow her faith to rule, but her admission that she would have voted against the gay marriage bill has to be of concern and does smack of some hypocrisy in her statement. She is not an ordinary person, I couldn't care less about her faith but when she is running to be First Minister of Scotland then these small details become far more important.

I see Republicans over here talking about respecting settled law, until they find a way of disputing or changing it and for a progressive party having a leader who is openly against gay marriage has to be a warning sign to you surely?? A political party's agenda is set by the rank and file of the party, the leader is the one who has to make sure that agenda is followed, what happens when the next social issue becomes a topic or a proposed law and she then votes against it because of her faith? It took just one term of Trump to change the makeup of the US Supreme Court to the point where it doesn't matter what he thinks nor what the rank and file Republicans think, by being leader he was able to put the mechanisms in place to make sure others with lower profiles and no aspiration for office were able to change settled law. That might seem extreme by Scottish standards and I am not suggesting she is the same as him but it has all been done under the umbrella of Christian faith and by people following that faith who make decisions.

Again I will defend her right to have faith and to have views, but can you imagine a gay person from Scotland voting for a leader that is opposed to their marriage to their partner? Diversity is fine and having ones own views is fine but when the leader of a party is against the rights of others then for me it reflects badly on the party. Of course we are not all angels, we all have our beliefs but we are not the one looking to lead the Scottish Government.

As for Humza Yousaf, I would hold him to the same standards.

---

I respect you and jim having different views to mine, but in defence of my point of view, I am still convinced that she should still be allowed to contest the leadership without the condemnation. If SNP members feel she is not suitable, then they don't vote for her, as will undoubtedly happen.

She has never said she wants to govern by religious belief and I would hope that the SNP chooses policy, not her. It's a sad fact of life nowadays that personality wins over policy every time.

I am interested in your mention of "right-wing Christians". Can someone opposing some of the examples you mention not be left-wing?

Anyway, I've had my say on the Kate Forbes saga 4 times now and I feel that's enough for anyone.

Of course she is allowed to contest it, nothing should stop her from doing that, but as a person standing for election to the highest office in Scotland, those who have a say should be fully aware of where she stands on topic, as they should for all candidates.

She is reported to have said "I make my own decisions on the basis of what decision is right and wrong, according to my faith", that would worry me if she wanted to be my leader.

I mention right wing Christians because that is exactly what they are, right wing and Christian. The difference broadly between them and moderate or left wing Christians is their belief that their version of Christianity should be the only one and should be the rules by which the US is governed. They are the ones the Republicans tend to "throw red meat" type comments out there to make sure this group continues to vote for them. This is purely a US thing and does not mean it applies elsewhere.

[0762]

There are good signs there will be healthy debate covering this leadership contest as we move forward and in spite of the expected toxic Brit press/media incursions. The 100k+ SNP membership will ultimately decide who is the appropriate person and as I commented in a previous thread - choose wisely! My biggest disappointment is the fact there are only three candidates. Their ratings were 1, 2 and 5 percentage popularity pts, Kate Forbes initially on the 5 rating. And btw I don't believe Humza Yousaf will be held to the same standards based on observations so far. Indeed, I've previously said how astounding it is in watching this form of extreme scrutiny coming across the Scottish border while seeing no consistency re the religious views/beliefs of any reputable or disreputable politicians down the years in England. I'd wager a good number of them uphold the institution of marriage above the same sex one. They just wouldn't honestly disclose that view in the way that Kate Forbes did it. It is also troubling (but not surprising as I predicted much of this stuff unfolding well before the event!) to see the BBC telling the Scottish population on a daily basis (so far) that Kate Forbes isn't a fan of same sex marriage!!!??? Talk about a set agenda! And as for consistency re religious beliefs? There was a recent articulate response from the Green MSP, Ross Greer, a friend of Kate Forbes and a CoS member/devout Christian who espoused his church's favourable stance on gay marriage as opposed to Kate Forbes position re the traditional institution of marriage itself. His initial comment was, "I'm a Christian too and my faith is why I support LGBT equality". However, he failed to say that the Church of Scotland has provision for congregations to refuse to accept having a gay minister? And Kirk ministers have the right to refuse to conduct gay marriages if it is against their conscience? Hence one could similarly debate why the leader of the Green Party, Patrick Harvie, is happy to have Mr Greer in his party? There is clearly an element of consistency missing from this debate!! I still tend to focus on the views of certain Tories re these candidates and I find it curious that senior members like prof Adam Tomkins, an ex Scot parliamentarian, still regard Kate Forbes qualities as something that the Unionist side fears most - something to take note of as the leadership contest gradually picks up in the weeks ahead.

[0762]

Early days, but interestingly an initial poll by the Big Partnership still shows Kate Forbes is out in front - 31% don't knows, 28% for Forbes, Yousaf 20% and Regan 7%. The poll found 5% of SNP supporters think faith or personal beliefs are important. 61% want an indy referendum to be held in the next 2 years. 58% commented it is important that the new FM tackles the cost of living crisis - well up there in Kate Forbes remit btw! Only 12% said they are either somewhat or very inclined to vote SNP on the regional list ballot.
Worth noting some of the content from Kate Forbes in an exclusive comment to The National: "Most mothers dread the return from maternity leave. It has certainly been quite a tough first week back as I launched my bid to be the next FM of Scotland. This leadership election is about independence, who is best equipped and who has the best plan to achieve it. It is also about the society we want Scotland to be in the years ahead, where tolerance is the ruling ethic, differences are welcomed, fairness is the norm, equality of opportunity is the birth right of every child, poverty becomes history, and the rule of law applies to everyone. At the same time, we need to re-engage the Yes movement, which is full of talent and ideas, in uniting behind the common cause of independence. As a party, we are the largest entity in the movement, but we must build bridges, to those of different parties and none, and create the space to meaningfully engage on the path to independence. I am hugely ambitious for Scotland..........growing a sustainable economy, being at the forefront of building a nation characterised by innovation and entrepreneurship...............We must break from the past! If we want the same outcomes, I suggest we continue with the same old practices!...........................To achieve independence we need to be bolder, braver and more realistic and, ultimately, we also need a leader who is fresh-faced and ready........................................As Finance Sec during the Covid-19 crisis and the cost of living crisis, I've proven myself as a credible and competent public servant, trusted with the national budget - competence breeds confidence!.........Under my leadership, I want to develop a model that gives increased autonomy to my team in Cabinet and members of the SNP, pushing power out and down. I also want to take a much wider approach to genuinely listening to informed voices when it comes to policymaking. There are numerous think tanks like Common Weal who have been working away to produce policy papers and suggestions that have not been getting the hearing they deserve.....time to broaden the range of voices, although it would be impossible to agree with every suggestion from every source, all well-considered suggestions should be carefully considered.....Our neighbouring small independent countries enjoy wealthier, fairer and greener outcomes - there is no reason why Scotland cannot do the same!..............I am committed to doing everything in my power to make that vision a reality, and I hope you will join me on that journey".

[0762]

And the first SNP leadership hustings live streamed tonight from Cumbernauld - how refreshing to see a civilised debate without hostile press/media people or staged antagonistic audiences from the BBC. Lotsa searching questions coming from SNP members in a healthy and friendly debate amongst people who have a common cause for Scotland gaining self-determination. IMO Kate Forbes already looking like the eventual new FM of Scotland - by far a more impressive candidate than Yousaf or Regan. Still early days though.

[0762]

I listened to a radio report saying that the Brit govt Foreign Sec, James Cleverley, had ordered Brit diplomats to "keep an eye" on SNP govt ministers travelling and meeting overseas politicians and naturally assumed it was a satirical spoof report. Not so!! This story is true in the fact Brit diplomats are instructed to accompany Scot govt ministers and keep watch in case they try to undermine the UK. Those Tory defenders of free speech, those champions of Ukrainian self-determination, those self-proclaimed standard bearers of democracy turn out to be hypocrites/liars/bullies. IMO this is remarkably similar to the past practises of the Soviet Union; so I suggest we should now refer to any Brit diplomats who go along with this authoritarianism as KGB (Kingdom of Great Britain) minders!!

[0762]

So the final SNP leadership debate is over tonight where the BBC thankfully didn't try to stage-manage a biased audience full of angst, instead covering the main topics that people in Scotland want to hear from a future leader of the SNP/Scot govt and most of the coverage being healthy, constructive debate with some differing points of view. The talking is over and the voting process begins. My own "take" on the eventual winner is that I'll be very surprised if Kate Forbes doesn't succeed in her campaign to become the next First Minister of Scotland. She comes over as someone who is well assured and has an element of stature about her compared with the other candidates. We shall see how it all unfolds!

[0762]

https://www.businessforscotland.com/5-th...nute-read/

Well there you have it straight from Chancellor Hunt's mouth - Independence is better than dependence! And a Brit govt CoE suddenly realising what he inadvertently said (against the whole Unionist undemocratic stance to thwart Scotland's push towards self-determination) and quickly trying to backtrack during his budget statement. And his budget not even coming close to solving the country's economic woes on various fronts incl the massive impact of Brexit independently forecasted from various sources imposed on a sovereign country, Bella Caledonia, that never voted for it and still had it brazenly "shoved down our throats" anyway while NI gratefully trading under different rules and standards. Equal partners in a Union of equals?? A Unionist myth, one of many Unionists soundbites down the years that have been proved to be shameless lies.

[0762]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/rea...cb69&ei=23

A surprising intervention by journos of the anti-indy Scotsman newspaper, but there surely comes a time when honest reporting prevails and particularly when it comes to a serial hypocrite like the shameless DRoss, the leader of the Scot Tory party. This was it! As the FM has consistently commented re the ferries project - it is regrettable how it unfolded and not the best watch. Rectify the mistakes by other parties who have not excelled in this festering old story. Get the job done and move on asap! However, the huge difference in revenue loss incurred on the HS2 project by this Tory-Brexit govt is eyewatering and places the island ferries issue into a miniscule category of criticism, albeit deserved. DRoss is what he is and always will be - a shameless minion of a man with no standing or reputation whatsoever - a political nobody!!

[ritchiebaby]

It looks like Nicola and now Peter have got out just in time. And where have all the SNP party members gone? Were they ever there?

Whoever the new leader turns out to be is going to have to get themselves out of a quagmire quickly.