Yes apologies for getting into the weeds of wider transphobia origins/common factions rather than SNP specific transphobia. The weird way some in the SNP have made it a nationalistic issue - in a very different way to say a 'God, guns, and (no) gays' kind of way that people familiar with US Republicans might expect - is quite difficult for non-Scots to understand.
Yeah, I gotta say, these descriptions of how non-religious, pro-nationalistic scottish transphobia works are pretty opaque, and I can't quite get a clear idea of the angle being played by the demagogues.
Is it maybe just the case that the proposed Gender Reform Bill was so progressive, that it gave the transphobes more to yell about than their ideological brethren in the rest of the UK? But even then, how does that tie into nationalism?
Maybe it's an anti-centralization thing? But that wouldn't fit the recent story of London being the one imposing a conservative agenda on Holyrood via their veto of the bill.
The Gender Reform Bill was so milquetoast that Theresa May was bringing forth similar legislation for a Conservative government in England at the same time it was originally proposed. It's legislation similar to that used all over Europe in another 11 countries and was supported by every party in the Scottish Parliament except the post-Boris Conservatives - under Ruth Davidson gender recognition reform was even Scottish Conservative policy in 2016.
But I'm perhaps underestimating the role of religion - as people pitching for left of centre votes who are religious transphobes, if canny, won't want to use religious language for obvious reasons that the responses to Kate Forbes demonstrate, so are more likely to clothe themselves in Guardian/Observer reactionary but ostensibly secular gender essentialism to keep a left wing posture.
And it may also be more prosaic, the kind of people who like the old Bannockburn/UDI style nationalism of Regan tend to be older men, and older men are precisely the kind of people who also show in polling the most anti-trans attitudes - so it's popular with them.
But they doubled down on it so aggressively that I think something more is going on. It should also be remembered that Salmond and Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh of Alba worked for Russia Today and some key non-SNP online opinion formers in this area are pro-Putin - and you know what Putinist views are on trans people. But the mind boggles.
They really did radicalise very quickly after Salmond's downfall and some were involved in claiming women who brought forward harassment claims against Salmond were part of a conspiracy and tried to out them for further harassment.
But I'm perhaps underestimating the role of religion - as people pitching for left of centre votes who are religious transphobes, if canny, won't want to use religious language for obvious reasons that the responses to Kate Forbes demonstrate, so are more likely to clothe themselves in Guardian/Observer reactionary but ostensibly secular gender essentialism to keep a left wing posture.
And I will also say I think an opinion can be religious, without being systematically so.
Somewhere on one of these threads, it was implied that people who whine about how "This is supposed to be a Christian country!!' more often than not are non-churchgoers. But I think that's using an overly constrictive definition of who qualifies as religious.
If a biblically illiterate non-churchgoer is asked his opinion of glbqt rights, and he replies "It's against the will of God!", I'm gonna call that a religious opinion, even if the guy knows next-to-nothing about the tradition he's citing. Because no matter how you spin it, God is a religious concept, rooted in historical monotheism.
So, I'm guessing there might be a few of those types of religious people in the transphobe crowd, instead of it only being the types who can cite whole passages from Leviticus and St. Paul in defense of their positions.
And it may also be more prosaic, the kind of people who like the old Bannockburn/UDI style nationalism of Regan tend to be older men, and older men are precisely the kind of people who also show in polling the most anti-trans attitudes - so it's popular with them.
In that case, it might be a correlative, rather than a causal, relationship between nationalism and transphobia: old men are drawn to atavistic nationalism, and those same old men are drawn to conservative gender ideologies, so politicians like Regan pander to both instincts. Though the instincts could still exist separately from one another.
But they doubled down on it so aggressively that I think something more is going on. It should also be remembered that Salmond and 7Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh of Alba worked for Russia Today and some key non-SNP online opinion formers in this area are pro-Putin - and you know what Putinist views are on trans people. But the mind boggles.
It's pretty obvious that Putin is trying to drum up a following among social-conservative mobs the world over, and working at RT would certainly give you state-sanctioned exposure to the relevant opinions.
But I think this could just be another correlation: someone with conservative views on gender might simply be the kind of person who would go work at RT in the first place.
For a while transphobia was not a religious position. There was a time when the most trans-friendly country in the world was Iran. (It may not have been friendly overall.) The C of E synod recognised trans people a few years back with little controversy IIRC.
For a while transphobia was not a religious position. There was a time when the most trans-friendly country in the world was Iran. (It may not have been friendly overall.) The C of E synod recognised trans people a few years back with little controversy IIRC.
But the reason Iran gets that reputation is that it is a place where gay people really are pressured to transition, this time in order to make their relationships 'straight'. Given the fact that gay and bi trans people exist, it's not actually a trans-friendly place and not religiously trans-friendly.
I would say that transphobia has always been a religious position even if some religions don't subscribe to it. General Synod recognising trans people (there was certainly some controversy wrt ceremonies for new names etc) didn't make a lot of difference to people stuck in a transphobic church on the ground.
For a while transphobia was not a religious position.
Well, I think it would depend on the religion. I'm pretty sure that most of the xtian fundies who have been opposing gay-and-lesbian equality since the 1960s are against trans rights as well. Historically, they might not have been passing vehemently-worded resolutions against it at their conventions, but that's probably because the issue itself was fairly marginal as far as public discussion went.
Certainly, intersectionality is a thing, which is why I said Iran may not have been friendly to trans-people overall.
But that's not because of intersectionality, it's because surgery etc existing primarily in order to make gay people straight is not actually being friendly to trans people in the first place.
It's way-out Trumpist stuff - amazingly coming from the less Trumpy of the two reactionary candidates. None of these people complained when their folk were winning internal elections carried out on the same basis by the same folk. It's also going to lose the people who are doing this votes because a lot of party members know this and are really hacked off about this behaviour.
It might also be a play on Forbes' part for second preferences from Regan because her Alba type supporters do tend to be fond of a good conspiracy and to channel their hatred of Nicola Sturgeon into all sorts of libelous and nefarious accusations against her husband the Chief Exec of the SNP Pete Murrell as part of a conspiracy with her. (Some of it is homophobic conspiracy theory too - there's some terrible made-up stuff out there)
There was also an interesting Regan second preferences bid from Humza Yousaf who is going to an All Under One Banner rally - popular with the kind of people who vote Regan, a group I wouldn't touch with a bargepole. I'm disappointed in him but I suppose politicians are going to politic.
You have to read a long way down to get a sensible voice -
However, SNP MP Gavin Newlands dismissed the statement by Ms Thomson, tweeting that he could not believe "this Trumpian nonsense has now hit my own party".
He insisted the vote was being carried out by "a highly regarded and independent third party
The firm used is indeed the usual one who have been used for years - for candidate selections, internal elections and the agreement with the Green MSPs - you'd think they would have complained or noticed before now...
They've been used at least since 2015.
I would expect this from Regan but, as I said above, am gobsmacked to see Forbes at it.
Just read it. Gotta say, if I was simply going by the article itself, I don't think I would assume a priori that the people alleging corruption are trumpish weirdos.
Though I suppose the phrase "based on hearsay or are from bad faith actors" might indicate a certain type of worldview, if you have some idea of what's going on and who is involved.
It's a BBC article. I didn't have time to scrabble about for anything better and you have to know who some of these people are and the axes they are grinding which it doesn't tell you. And you need to know as I mentioned above that it's the same system every vote has been on for at least the past eight years. Nothing has changed except that these chancers are running.
It's a BBC article. I didn't have time to scrabble about for anything better and you have to know who some of these people are and the axes they are grinding which it doesn't tell you. And you need to know as I mentioned above that it's the same system every vote has been on for at least the past eight years. Nothing has changed except that these chancers are running.
Thanks again. And just for the record, I wasn't complaining about your choosing the beeb as a source. The broadcaster of record is always a good bet, the article was clear, and I think I can fill in the blanks via this thread and other research.
There was also an interesting Regan second preferences bid from Humza Yousaf who is going to an All Under One Banner rally - popular with the kind of people who vote Regan, a group I wouldn't touch with a bargepole. I'm disappointed in him but I suppose politicians are going to politic.
AUOB would seem a natural match to Regan, the whole notion of unity if you want independence and everything else doesn't matter is something that that end of the SNP (and the section that split to Alba) emphasise. The problem is that you end up with very small groups with various obnoxious views who wouldn't normally get heard beyond their own circle of likeminded people getting to share a platform with major political parties and individuals, giving them a chance to grab a claim to democratic legitimacy they wouldn't otherwise have. The question isn't ultimately just about independence for Scotland, it's what sort of nation we want Scotland to be - and AUOB ignores that, with the result that the "one banner" covers groups with mutually exclusive opinions on what sort of nation Scotland should be agreeing only that it shouldn't be part of the UK.
There's a fundamental split within the independence movement (a split that also goes through the SNP) between positions that are (grossly over generalised) gain independence and then sort out what sort of nation we'll be vs do what we can to make Scotland the nation we want it to be and use that (especially where the UK government prevents it) to build the case for independence. The first option basically kicks a load of stuff down the road (and, many would include gender recognition or other human rights moves) to concentrate on gaining independence - which leaves a lot of people deprived of rights they should have until some point after independence. The second option has a bigger emphasis on being a party of government and addressing the current concerns people have, building the case that Scotland can be effectively governed and demonstrating how we differ from England and hence the case for independence.
I apologise for bashing on about this, but the Elephant in the Room is the extent to which the Scottish independence electoral coalition is prepared to go in defiance of its bluff being called. To my mind if civil disobedience is to be eschewed Westminster is under no pressure to grant an independence referendum. It is a failure to grasp that nettle which leaves the strategies of the candidates so unconvincing, explains the resignation of Sturgeon, and the reluctance of others to enter the lists. Remember Quebec and Catalonia.
I apologise for bashing on about this, but the Elephant in the Room is the extent to which the Scottish independence electoral coalition is prepared to go in defiance of its bluff being called. To my mind if civil disobedience is to be eschewed Westminster is under no pressure to grant an independence referendum. It is a failure to grasp that nettle which leaves the strategies of the candidates so unconvincing, explains the resignation of Sturgeon, and the reluctance of others to enter the lists. Remember Quebec and Catalonia.
I think consistent polling in favour of independence (55%+ for a year or more) would make the pressure on Westminster intolerable. The lesson from Ireland is that the price of independence can be very high. Justified, perhaps, if oppression is the problem (as it was in Ireland). If, as in the case of Scotland, it's simply that you think the nation can be better or more prosperous governing itself then using socially and economically damaging tactics to achieve it is counterproductive.
I think consistent polling in favour of independence (55%+ for a year or more) would make the pressure on Westminster intolerable. The lesson from Ireland is that the price of independence can be very high. Justified, perhaps, if oppression is the problem (as it was in Ireland). If, as in the case of Scotland, it's simply that you think the nation can be better or more prosperous governing itself then using socially and economically damaging tactics to achieve it is counterproductive.
Something to be wary of is an argument that such a change would need more than a simple 50% + 1 majority. To push that argument is to say that a majority is to be denied the answer usual in our system and to say that greater weight is to be given to position of the minority. Do you need a supermajority to form a government?
I apologise for bashing on about this, but the Elephant in the Room is the extent to which the Scottish independence electoral coalition is prepared to go in defiance of its bluff being called. To my mind if civil disobedience is to be eschewed Westminster is under no pressure to grant an independence referendum. It is a failure to grasp that nettle which leaves the strategies of the candidates so unconvincing, explains the resignation of Sturgeon, and the reluctance of others to enter the lists. Remember Quebec and Catalonia.
I think consistent polling in favour of independence (55%+ for a year or more) would make the pressure on Westminster intolerable.
OTOH there's public support for a lot of things that never happen.
I think consistent polling in favour of independence (55%+ for a year or more) would make the pressure on Westminster intolerable. The lesson from Ireland is that the price of independence can be very high. Justified, perhaps, if oppression is the problem (as it was in Ireland). If, as in the case of Scotland, it's simply that you think the nation can be better or more prosperous governing itself then using socially and economically damaging tactics to achieve it is counterproductive.
Something to be wary of is an argument that such a change would need more than a simple 50% + 1 majority. To push that argument is to say that a majority is to be denied the answer usual in our system and to say that greater weight is to be given to position of the minority. Do you need a supermajority to form a government?
I know what you mean, but a government is only going to last (in the UK) up to five years before you get a chance to change it.
If you’re talking about a major constitutional change I can see an argument for some kind of super majority, otherwise what’s to stop you changing it all back again in five years time, or even next year if the majority opinion shifts by a percentage point or two.
I think consistent polling in favour of independence (55%+ for a year or more) would make the pressure on Westminster intolerable. The lesson from Ireland is that the price of independence can be very high. Justified, perhaps, if oppression is the problem (as it was in Ireland). If, as in the case of Scotland, it's simply that you think the nation can be better or more prosperous governing itself then using socially and economically damaging tactics to achieve it is counterproductive.
Something to be wary of is an argument that such a change would need more than a simple 50% + 1 majority. To push that argument is to say that a majority is to be denied the answer usual in our system and to say that greater weight is to be given to position of the minority. Do you need a supermajority to form a government?
In Scotland, you need close to 50% of the vote to form a majority government - you could, of course, form a government with less than 50% of the MSPs in your party if you can get support from other parties. In the UK, a majority government can be (and almost always is) formed on the basis of significantly less than 50% of the votes cast.
So, the 50%+1 threshold for a referendum (as was the case in 2014, and also for the EU vote in 2016) is already above the requirement to form a government. Though some form of supermajority (eg: 50%+1 in all of the regions of Scotland) would be more democratic I don't see anyone advocating for it - the pro-indy groups will recognise it as making it harder to get the vote they need, and Conservatives and others will be faced with the "why wasn't that required in 2016?" question that they won't want asked.
Of course, a long period of opinion polls giving 55%+ isn't a guarantee that in a referendum the Yes vote would be 50%+1. But, it seems to me to be a good indicator that the majority in Scotland would want to have another vote on the question.
Plus, whichever way the SNP leadership goes, in a few weeks we're going to see a new generation of leaders in the SNP with those who lead the campaign for independence in 2014 having taken a big step back. There's already a new generation of leaders for the parties that opposed independence in 2014. Even without the seismic political shift of Brexit, which IMO marked a whole new political landscape, this change in leadership means we're well into a new generation and this generation deserves to have a say in the future of the country, just as the generation of 2014 did.
Arethosemyfeet: I think consistent polling in favour of independence (55%+ for a year or more) would make the pressure on Westminster intolerable. The lesson from Ireland is that the price of independence can be very high. Justified, perhaps, if oppression is the problem (as it was in Ireland). If, as in the case of Scotland, it's simply that you think the nation can be better or more prosperous governing itself then using socially and economically damaging tactics to achieve it is counterproductive.
Could you be more precise, Arethosemyfeet, as to what you mean by "constant polling" ? Are you referring to public opinion polls, actual local and parliamentary (Westminster, Holyrood) elections, or referendums? I think you unclear as to what the steps in the process are and why a hostile United Kingdom would accept it without a fight.
What do you mean, Arethosemyfeet, by: "the pressure on Westminster [would be] intolerable" ? Do you mean "intolerable" for United Kingdom politicians, or "intolerable" for the Scottish electorate to endure? I would have thought until the Scottish electorate found it "intolerable" and demonstrated that was the case by challenging the legitimacy of the Union the Empire will remain secure. It is precisely because Scottish nationalists are not prepared to accept temporary "socially and economically damaging tactics," as with their Catalonian counterparts, that the cause does not hold the initiative. Thus, as long as English politicians think the preservation of the union is in their interest Westminster has nothing to fear. Such is the root of the present impasse.
It is precisely because Scottish nationalists are not prepared to accept temporary "socially and economically damaging tactics," as with their Catalonian counterparts, that the cause does not hold the initiative. Thus, as long as English politicians think the preservation of the union is in their interest Westminster has nothing to fear. Such is the root of the present impasse.
I tend to agree; protests and movements generally succeed only when the government feels there's a cost associated with ignoring them; apart from UKIP successfully pushing Cameron into a referendum and then Reform following through in 2019, the only other real example of a protest working are the blockades of fuel refineries under the Blair government. In both cases the party in charge feared that their voting coalition would be taken apart by the press.
If - as is predicted - the next government is a Labour one that isn't dependent on Scottish seats to hold government, it will have literally no reason to address the independence question, and every incentive not to due to possible downside risks.
chrisstiles: If - as is predicted - the next government is a Labour one that isn't dependent on Scottish seats to hold government, it will have literally no reason to address the independence question, and every incentive not to due to possible downside risks.
As a foot-note it might be pointed out that the SNP would find it very difficult to join the Conservatives in bringing down a minority Labour Administration. They did so in 1979 which proved greatly injurious to the credibility of the SNP in the consequential general election. Thus, Labour does not need a pact with the SNP to govern.
I vividly remember 1979, and the inauguration of the great she queen, i.e., Thatcher. I think Callaghan lost by one vote, so of course, fierce scrutiny applied to the yes vote, (approving no confidence), and the SNP shone brightly in that crowd, and also Liberals, and various abstentions. Happy days!
So, the 50%+1 threshold for a referendum (as was the case in 2014, and also for the EU vote in 2016) is already above the requirement to form a government. Though some form of supermajority (eg: 50%+1 in all of the regions of Scotland) would be more democratic I don't see anyone advocating for it - the pro-indy groups will recognise it as making it harder to get the vote they need, and Conservatives and others will be faced with the "why wasn't that required in 2016?" question that they won't want asked.
I don't understand your first sentence. To form a government, you need to be able to obtain the support of more than 50% of the members of the lower house. This may translate into less than 50% of the popular vote. But with a referendum, you're not talking of votes for parliamentary seats - you're talking of the votes of the electorate as a whole (and this leaves to one side the problems created by a lack of compulsory voting in either a referendum or for parliament/assembly).
I know what you mean, but a government is only going to last (in the UK) up to five years before you get a chance to change it.
If you’re talking about a major constitutional change I can see an argument for some kind of super majority, otherwise what’s to stop you changing it all back again in five years time, or even next year if the majority opinion shifts by a percentage point or two.
I'm afraid that I can't understand this argument. Our Federal constitution can be amended, but to do so requires a double majority - a majority overall, and a majority in a majority of States. I can just see an argument to support that, but not in a unitary state, such as Scotland.
So, the 50%+1 threshold for a referendum (as was the case in 2014, and also for the EU vote in 2016) is already above the requirement to form a government. Though some form of supermajority (eg: 50%+1 in all of the regions of Scotland) would be more democratic I don't see anyone advocating for it - the pro-indy groups will recognise it as making it harder to get the vote they need, and Conservatives and others will be faced with the "why wasn't that required in 2016?" question that they won't want asked.
I don't understand your first sentence. To form a government, you need to be able to obtain the support of more than 50% of the members of the lower house. This may translate into less than 50% of the popular vote.
In any multi-party system, a 50%+1 member majority in Parliament (or equivalent) can be obtained on significantly less than 50% of the popular vote. Even under systems that aim for greater proportionality this will be true - and, it's certainly true of the Westminster elections and the constituency part of the Scottish system, and the PR regions don't fully compensate for that bias. It's also possible to form a government without having 50%+1 of the members - though it would need at least one other party to not actively oppose that.
But with a referendum, you're not talking of votes for parliamentary seats - you're talking of the votes of the electorate as a whole
Indeed. Which is where my statement that a majority requirement for a referendum to pass (50%+1 of votes in favour) already exceeds the requirement for forming a government (which is possible on less than 50% of the electorate as a whole).
But, it's all irrelevant because that 50%+1 requirement isn't going to change - the pro-indy parties aren't going to set out to make it harder to get a Yes, and the pro-unionist ones aren't going to want to set a higher standard than the 2016 EU vote because that will highlight the deficiencies of that vote.
I think what I am trying to say is that if you only register a simple majority then at 50.1% you can instigate major constitutional change, but next year when that you lose a fraction of a percent of the vote and there’s a simple 69.1% majority for reversing the decision everything gets flung into reverse.
Requiring some kind of super majority might go against ‘pure’ democracy but may be important to ensure stability.
In theory an incoming government UK government could run another EU referendum and if 51.9% now want back in, could claim that ‘the will of the people” mandates re-entry to the EU. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was no EU objection to be overcome, the instability and uncertainty around continual constitutional change would IMO be very damaging to the country and to government. (TBH I’d argue for the necessity of some kind of minimum turnout figure as well, given that we don’t have compulsory voting.)
The snag there is that a referendum to rejoin the EU is not required - if there is a majority in parliament for it then the application process can begin. Obviously with the timescale involved the policy would likely have to survive a couple of general elections but a referendum would not be required.
I think this tangent has moved far enough from both SNP leadership and issues where there is personal investment that I've copied many of the posts and made a new thread in Purgatory. There's a character limit to posts which meant I couldn't put all the posts here in the OP there - so if there's a point I missed then my apologies, you can always say it again.
Politicians haven't been honest and open? Surely not.
Not quite the withering putdown. It's implication seems fairly clear; she's suggesting he may be holding extreme beliefs but has got an easy ride from the press.
He certainly didn't - they went after him for missing a key vote on equal marriage because he was helping someone on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy.
Also it's grim because it's absolutely due to being visibly Muslim, not because Forbes has actual reasons to believe that he has more conservative/extreme beliefs.
He certainly didn't - they went after him for missing a key vote on equal marriage because he was helping someone on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy.
I assume they only mentioned the missed-vote part, not the condemned-blasphemer part?
I ask, because I could see some far-right xenophobes spinning it as "He cares more about people in non-western foreign-countries than people in Scotland[*]", but that's not quite the vibe I get from the SNP right now, recent transphobia notwithstanding.
It began with just reports of the missed vote, but the press then quickly had to report his side (that he was helping in this blasphemy case) and then Alex Salmond of Alba and his allies tried to cast doubt on that. So there was a lot of stick and claims that Yousaf 'was under pressure from the mosque' so basically a mix of Islamophobia and trying to make Kate Forbes seem palatable.
I haven't seen anyone, even from Alba try the latter position.
The contest now seems to have emboldened one of the most awful people in the SNP to put forward a vile attack on abortion rights. This is part of the harm these 'debates' do. Because there are two reactionary candidates out of three, (one of them an out and out bigot with little support - only one endorser out of both parliamentary parties) the media gives them all equal time as balance which means a massive distortion in favour of pushing back and belittling human rights.
And I should add all this bad publicity is the SNPs own fault. Lots of people, myself among them, complained about attacks on human rights going unchecked and too little was done. How were people like this allowed to pass vetting as parliamentary candidates, never mind becoming ministers? Now these regressive candidates and their backers are the face of the party to millions.
It's not like the SNP doesn't have policy about anti-trans bigotry but it's never been enforced and now those who turned a blind eye are discovering what trans people already knew, that the scorpion they were protecting to help it cross the river is just as happy to sting them as well and nobody is safe while you coddle anti-human rights and conspiracist politicians in any movement.
The contest now seems to have emboldened one of the most awful people in the SNP to put forward a vile attack on abortion rights.
Could you direct us to a news article about this? If you don't wanna post a link, maybe just the name of a news outlet that has the story prominently displayed?
Sorry I didn't want to give him publicity but realise that's not helpful for people posting from 'furth of the realm' (outside Scotland). I'm just so scunnered* by the whole thing
*Online Scots dictionary
Scunner [ˈskʌnər, U. ˈskʌn(d)ər]
n. A feeling of disgust, surfeit or nausea, loathing.
v. To get a feeling of aversion, disgust or loathing. To feel surfeited or nauseated. With at: to feel disgust for, to be sickened by, turn in aversion from, be bored or repelled by. To cause a feeling of repulsion, aversion or loathing in a person, to disgust, nauseate, surfeit.
pt. pp. scunnert adj. Disgusted, bored, repelled, fed up. Repugnance, distaste, dislike. A loss of interest or enthusiasm. A shudder betokening physical or moral repugnance. A sudden shock. A cause or object of loathing or aversion, a disgusting or tiresome business, a pest or nuisance.
Comments
Yeah, I gotta say, these descriptions of how non-religious, pro-nationalistic scottish transphobia works are pretty opaque, and I can't quite get a clear idea of the angle being played by the demagogues.
Is it maybe just the case that the proposed Gender Reform Bill was so progressive, that it gave the transphobes more to yell about than their ideological brethren in the rest of the UK? But even then, how does that tie into nationalism?
Maybe it's an anti-centralization thing? But that wouldn't fit the recent story of London being the one imposing a conservative agenda on Holyrood via their veto of the bill.
But I'm perhaps underestimating the role of religion - as people pitching for left of centre votes who are religious transphobes, if canny, won't want to use religious language for obvious reasons that the responses to Kate Forbes demonstrate, so are more likely to clothe themselves in Guardian/Observer reactionary but ostensibly secular gender essentialism to keep a left wing posture.
And it may also be more prosaic, the kind of people who like the old Bannockburn/UDI style nationalism of Regan tend to be older men, and older men are precisely the kind of people who also show in polling the most anti-trans attitudes - so it's popular with them.
But they doubled down on it so aggressively that I think something more is going on. It should also be remembered that Salmond and Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh of Alba worked for Russia Today and some key non-SNP online opinion formers in this area are pro-Putin - and you know what Putinist views are on trans people. But the mind boggles.
They really did radicalise very quickly after Salmond's downfall and some were involved in claiming women who brought forward harassment claims against Salmond were part of a conspiracy and tried to out them for further harassment.
And I will also say I think an opinion can be religious, without being systematically so.
Somewhere on one of these threads, it was implied that people who whine about how "This is supposed to be a Christian country!!' more often than not are non-churchgoers. But I think that's using an overly constrictive definition of who qualifies as religious.
If a biblically illiterate non-churchgoer is asked his opinion of glbqt rights, and he replies "It's against the will of God!", I'm gonna call that a religious opinion, even if the guy knows next-to-nothing about the tradition he's citing. Because no matter how you spin it, God is a religious concept, rooted in historical monotheism.
So, I'm guessing there might be a few of those types of religious people in the transphobe crowd, instead of it only being the types who can cite whole passages from Leviticus and St. Paul in defense of their positions.
In that case, it might be a correlative, rather than a causal, relationship between nationalism and transphobia: old men are drawn to atavistic nationalism, and those same old men are drawn to conservative gender ideologies, so politicians like Regan pander to both instincts. Though the instincts could still exist separately from one another.
It's pretty obvious that Putin is trying to drum up a following among social-conservative mobs the world over, and working at RT would certainly give you state-sanctioned exposure to the relevant opinions.
But I think this could just be another correlation: someone with conservative views on gender might simply be the kind of person who would go work at RT in the first place.
But the reason Iran gets that reputation is that it is a place where gay people really are pressured to transition, this time in order to make their relationships 'straight'. Given the fact that gay and bi trans people exist, it's not actually a trans-friendly place and not religiously trans-friendly.
I would say that transphobia has always been a religious position even if some religions don't subscribe to it. General Synod recognising trans people (there was certainly some controversy wrt ceremonies for new names etc) didn't make a lot of difference to people stuck in a transphobic church on the ground.
Well, I think it would depend on the religion. I'm pretty sure that most of the xtian fundies who have been opposing gay-and-lesbian equality since the 1960s are against trans rights as well. Historically, they might not have been passing vehemently-worded resolutions against it at their conventions, but that's probably because the issue itself was fairly marginal as far as public discussion went.
But that's not because of intersectionality, it's because surgery etc existing primarily in order to make gay people straight is not actually being friendly to trans people in the first place.
It might also be a play on Forbes' part for second preferences from Regan because her Alba type supporters do tend to be fond of a good conspiracy and to channel their hatred of Nicola Sturgeon into all sorts of libelous and nefarious accusations against her husband the Chief Exec of the SNP Pete Murrell as part of a conspiracy with her. (Some of it is homophobic conspiracy theory too - there's some terrible made-up stuff out there)
There was also an interesting Regan second preferences bid from Humza Yousaf who is going to an All Under One Banner rally - popular with the kind of people who vote Regan, a group I wouldn't touch with a bargepole. I'm disappointed in him but I suppose politicians are going to politic.
Would someone be able to clarify what this refers to?
You have to read a long way down to get a sensible voice -
The firm used is indeed the usual one who have been used for years - for candidate selections, internal elections and the agreement with the Green MSPs - you'd think they would have complained or noticed before now...
They've been used at least since 2015.
I would expect this from Regan but, as I said above, am gobsmacked to see Forbes at it.
I'll give it a read. Thanks, Louise.
Just read it. Gotta say, if I was simply going by the article itself, I don't think I would assume a priori that the people alleging corruption are trumpish weirdos.
Though I suppose the phrase "based on hearsay or are from bad faith actors" might indicate a certain type of worldview, if you have some idea of what's going on and who is involved.
Thanks again. And just for the record, I wasn't complaining about your choosing the beeb as a source. The broadcaster of record is always a good bet, the article was clear, and I think I can fill in the blanks via this thread and other research.
There's a fundamental split within the independence movement (a split that also goes through the SNP) between positions that are (grossly over generalised) gain independence and then sort out what sort of nation we'll be vs do what we can to make Scotland the nation we want it to be and use that (especially where the UK government prevents it) to build the case for independence. The first option basically kicks a load of stuff down the road (and, many would include gender recognition or other human rights moves) to concentrate on gaining independence - which leaves a lot of people deprived of rights they should have until some point after independence. The second option has a bigger emphasis on being a party of government and addressing the current concerns people have, building the case that Scotland can be effectively governed and demonstrating how we differ from England and hence the case for independence.
I think consistent polling in favour of independence (55%+ for a year or more) would make the pressure on Westminster intolerable. The lesson from Ireland is that the price of independence can be very high. Justified, perhaps, if oppression is the problem (as it was in Ireland). If, as in the case of Scotland, it's simply that you think the nation can be better or more prosperous governing itself then using socially and economically damaging tactics to achieve it is counterproductive.
Something to be wary of is an argument that such a change would need more than a simple 50% + 1 majority. To push that argument is to say that a majority is to be denied the answer usual in our system and to say that greater weight is to be given to position of the minority. Do you need a supermajority to form a government?
OTOH there's public support for a lot of things that never happen.
If you’re talking about a major constitutional change I can see an argument for some kind of super majority, otherwise what’s to stop you changing it all back again in five years time, or even next year if the majority opinion shifts by a percentage point or two.
So, the 50%+1 threshold for a referendum (as was the case in 2014, and also for the EU vote in 2016) is already above the requirement to form a government. Though some form of supermajority (eg: 50%+1 in all of the regions of Scotland) would be more democratic I don't see anyone advocating for it - the pro-indy groups will recognise it as making it harder to get the vote they need, and Conservatives and others will be faced with the "why wasn't that required in 2016?" question that they won't want asked.
Of course, a long period of opinion polls giving 55%+ isn't a guarantee that in a referendum the Yes vote would be 50%+1. But, it seems to me to be a good indicator that the majority in Scotland would want to have another vote on the question.
Plus, whichever way the SNP leadership goes, in a few weeks we're going to see a new generation of leaders in the SNP with those who lead the campaign for independence in 2014 having taken a big step back. There's already a new generation of leaders for the parties that opposed independence in 2014. Even without the seismic political shift of Brexit, which IMO marked a whole new political landscape, this change in leadership means we're well into a new generation and this generation deserves to have a say in the future of the country, just as the generation of 2014 did.
Could you be more precise, Arethosemyfeet, as to what you mean by "constant polling" ? Are you referring to public opinion polls, actual local and parliamentary (Westminster, Holyrood) elections, or referendums? I think you unclear as to what the steps in the process are and why a hostile United Kingdom would accept it without a fight.
What do you mean, Arethosemyfeet, by: "the pressure on Westminster [would be] intolerable" ? Do you mean "intolerable" for United Kingdom politicians, or "intolerable" for the Scottish electorate to endure? I would have thought until the Scottish electorate found it "intolerable" and demonstrated that was the case by challenging the legitimacy of the Union the Empire will remain secure. It is precisely because Scottish nationalists are not prepared to accept temporary "socially and economically damaging tactics," as with their Catalonian counterparts, that the cause does not hold the initiative. Thus, as long as English politicians think the preservation of the union is in their interest Westminster has nothing to fear. Such is the root of the present impasse.
I tend to agree; protests and movements generally succeed only when the government feels there's a cost associated with ignoring them; apart from UKIP successfully pushing Cameron into a referendum and then Reform following through in 2019, the only other real example of a protest working are the blockades of fuel refineries under the Blair government. In both cases the party in charge feared that their voting coalition would be taken apart by the press.
If - as is predicted - the next government is a Labour one that isn't dependent on Scottish seats to hold government, it will have literally no reason to address the independence question, and every incentive not to due to possible downside risks.
As a foot-note it might be pointed out that the SNP would find it very difficult to join the Conservatives in bringing down a minority Labour Administration. They did so in 1979 which proved greatly injurious to the credibility of the SNP in the consequential general election. Thus, Labour does not need a pact with the SNP to govern.
I don't understand your first sentence. To form a government, you need to be able to obtain the support of more than 50% of the members of the lower house. This may translate into less than 50% of the popular vote. But with a referendum, you're not talking of votes for parliamentary seats - you're talking of the votes of the electorate as a whole (and this leaves to one side the problems created by a lack of compulsory voting in either a referendum or for parliament/assembly).
I'm afraid that I can't understand this argument. Our Federal constitution can be amended, but to do so requires a double majority - a majority overall, and a majority in a majority of States. I can just see an argument to support that, but not in a unitary state, such as Scotland.
Indeed. Which is where my statement that a majority requirement for a referendum to pass (50%+1 of votes in favour) already exceeds the requirement for forming a government (which is possible on less than 50% of the electorate as a whole).
But, it's all irrelevant because that 50%+1 requirement isn't going to change - the pro-indy parties aren't going to set out to make it harder to get a Yes, and the pro-unionist ones aren't going to want to set a higher standard than the 2016 EU vote because that will highlight the deficiencies of that vote.
Requiring some kind of super majority might go against ‘pure’ democracy but may be important to ensure stability.
In theory an incoming government UK government could run another EU referendum and if 51.9% now want back in, could claim that ‘the will of the people” mandates re-entry to the EU. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was no EU objection to be overcome, the instability and uncertainty around continual constitutional change would IMO be very damaging to the country and to government. (TBH I’d argue for the necessity of some kind of minimum turnout figure as well, given that we don’t have compulsory voting.)
Politicians haven't been honest and open? Surely not.
Not quite the withering putdown. It's implication seems fairly clear; she's suggesting he may be holding extreme beliefs but has got an easy ride from the press.
I assume they only mentioned the missed-vote part, not the condemned-blasphemer part?
I ask, because I could see some far-right xenophobes spinning it as "He cares more about people in non-western foreign-countries than people in Scotland[*]", but that's not quite the vibe I get from the SNP right now, recent transphobia notwithstanding.
I haven't seen anyone, even from Alba try the latter position.
Thanks.
And I should add all this bad publicity is the SNPs own fault. Lots of people, myself among them, complained about attacks on human rights going unchecked and too little was done. How were people like this allowed to pass vetting as parliamentary candidates, never mind becoming ministers? Now these regressive candidates and their backers are the face of the party to millions.
It's not like the SNP doesn't have policy about anti-trans bigotry but it's never been enforced and now those who turned a blind eye are discovering what trans people already knew, that the scorpion they were protecting to help it cross the river is just as happy to sting them as well and nobody is safe while you coddle anti-human rights and conspiracist politicians in any movement.
Could you direct us to a news article about this? If you don't wanna post a link, maybe just the name of a news outlet that has the story prominently displayed?
Thanks. I'll check it out.
Thanks.
*Online Scots dictionary
Scunner [ˈskʌnər, U. ˈskʌn(d)ər]
n. A feeling of disgust, surfeit or nausea, loathing.
v. To get a feeling of aversion, disgust or loathing. To feel surfeited or nauseated. With at: to feel disgust for, to be sickened by, turn in aversion from, be bored or repelled by. To cause a feeling of repulsion, aversion or loathing in a person, to disgust, nauseate, surfeit.
pt. pp. scunnert adj. Disgusted, bored, repelled, fed up. Repugnance, distaste, dislike. A loss of interest or enthusiasm. A shudder betokening physical or moral repugnance. A sudden shock. A cause or object of loathing or aversion, a disgusting or tiresome business, a pest or nuisance.