Well just look at the events in Australia following a meeting hosted by an imported (within Australia) and extremely notorious UK TERF (not the very famous one, but one notorious with those following the movement iyswim) - for anyome curious the Australian edition of The Guardian has details (the US and Aus editions have different editorial teams to the UK edition and are not anti-trans). Nazi salutes (which has actually led to Australian states banning it) and events hosted by churches attended by the far-right. You cannot separate the tendrils of the far-right from either TERFs or the churches that are going along with this. It's going to get people killed.
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.
Nothing "may" about it. He does hold extreme beliefs. As for an easy ride from the press, maybe - but he has been boxing much cleverer than she has.
, (one of them an out and out bigot with little support - only one endorser out of both parliamentary parties)
I dont know whether the candidate in question is capable of winning the SNP election, as I don't know enough about Scottish politics, but I would sayd that it doesnt matter how many SNP grandees endorse anyone - all that matters is how the membership votes - and I would suspect that said candidate will do a great deal better than is generally thought.
, (one of them an out and out bigot with little support - only one endorser out of both parliamentary parties)
I dont know whether the candidate in question is capable of winning the SNP election, as I don't know enough about Scottish politics, but I would sayd that it doesnt matter how many SNP grandees endorse anyone - all that matters is how the membership votes - and I would suspect that said candidate will do a great deal better than is generally thought.
Why do you think someone from a particularly fundamentalist church who opposes unmarried people having children would be interested in caring for all Scottish people, not just those who are GLEs (or like Regan, willing to sacrifice their rights so others lose theirs)?
There is nothing I would consider extreme in that clip, it’s an statement of the blindingly obvious - which is that institutional racism is a thing (see the latest report on the Met for another example) and that positions of power in our society are not distributed in proportion to the population. This is as true in Scotland as the rest of the UK.
I've been asked to move these comments from the Purgatory Thread.
Arethosemyfeet: Yousaf is unlikely to have any issues rallying the party given his overwhelming support among MSPs. Forbes could rapidly find herself in trouble if she doesn't row back on her reactionary tendencies.
I agree with you about Forbes. I doubt, however, that she would attempt to roll back on existing "progressive" social legislation, though she is unlikely to pursue policies to advance it further, and would permit the Gender Recognition Bill/Act to fail. My guess is that most SNP MSPs will go along with her approach to Gender Recognition given public opposition to the legislation. To some extent she would be able to improve her parliamentary base through patronage, though the understanding with the Greens is likely to collapse. Economic and fiscal policy is likely to shift more to centre, which could be a more serious source of conflict with her MSPs than her approach to the politics of identity. Her problem is that while her fiscal approach is likely to attract centre-right electors it may be insufficient to offset the losses to the left. Parliamentary management for her is likely to be difficult.
Yousaf, I agree, starts with the advantage of representing continuity and thereby inherits a strong position in the parliamentary party, though unlike Sturgeon will not have Swinney, the fixer, at his side. There is likely, however, to be a significant minority on the centre-right who have been emboldened by the leadership campaign and less inclined to be biddable than hitherto. Thus, Yousaf's decision to use rejection by Westminster of the Gender Recognition Bill as the centre-piece of his early approach to promote independence may be challenged by them and pragmatists not wishing to go into the trenches over a policy unpopular with the electorate (including nationalists). Even under Sturgeon there was rebellion on this matter which could grow in her absence. The problem for Yousaf would be how to placate them and maintain the pact with the Greens.
Thus, while Yousaf would be able to claim a parliamentary mandate amongst SNP MSPs, Forbes-Regan and their allies could claim a democratic legitimacy as representing SNP voters. Consequently, for the first time there could be a strong element within the parliamentary SNP that is not at one with the leadership, which would have implications for party management- appointment of ministers and composition of parliamentary committees. (Similar difficulties, of course, would be faced by a Forbes-led party).
To an outsider, like myself, it looks as though Scottish politics is about to become much more interesting and difficult to predict. In all honesty it's difficult to see what choice the SNP members should make between Yousaf and Forbes to promote the interest of their party and its cause. Perhaps a better choice is waiting in the wings should the winner of the present contest fail- yet another variable to stir the pot.
Post-script: Further to my earlier post, quoted above, one notes that he has already shifted ground on this matter, indicating that he will not pursue the matter in the courts if his legal advice indicates little chance of success, which is likely to be the case. Probably a wise move politically.
The issue is that public disapproval disappears as soon as people are actually informed about the facts of what it entails. Generally the public have zero idea of how difficult and bureaucratic the system is for trans people and how many years people are waiting even to have a first appointment with a Gender Identity Clinic. The opposing sides have a vested interest in misleading the public about what it means (eg acting as if it changes the content of a GRC) because both Regan and Forbes have ideological reasons for wanting trans people as a group to no longer exist. That Forbes' motivation is religious doesn't make it less dangerous to trans people.
Could you point specifically to what you find objectionable in that video?
There's nothing objectionable I can see in what Humza Yousaf said in that clip, even less when taken in the context of the whole debate and including more of his speech than that clip. Though, the framing of that by the description by the person who posted the clip on YouTube and the comments are deeply offensive, a clear illustration of the racism that Yousaf is pointing out in that speech. The whole speech (without the selection of a portion of it by someone with potentially racist intent) can be found on the Scottish Parliament website, from 1:56
Hezekiah,
Your post breaks the source rules for Epiphanies as though the actual content of the video is unobjectionable, it is hosted on a small numbers YouTube channel which also has questionable content and framing. That breaks the guidelines and consequently it has been hidden texted and the link broken
5. This forum will be more closely hosted than the rest of the Ship. For example, some phrases or sources may be ruled off-limits on a particular thread if they are seen as dehumanising, poor quality or containing disinformation. Circular discussions may be closed and tangents redirected. Hosts here may instruct persistently disruptive posters to cease and desist; admins may revoke posting privileges for Epiphanies.
Could you please carefully read the guidelines for this board and the rules for the boards as a whole especially C1
1. Don’t be a jerk – Lively, intelligent discussion is what we’re about. Jerkish behavior includes racism, sexism (and all the other negative -isms), plus trolling and flaming.
Any response to a host ruling goes in the Styx and not on this thread.
, (one of them an out and out bigot with little support - only one endorser out of both parliamentary parties)
I dont know whether the candidate in question is capable of winning the SNP election, as I don't know enough about Scottish politics, but I would sayd that it doesnt matter how many SNP grandees endorse anyone - all that matters is how the membership votes - and I would suspect that said candidate will do a great deal better than is generally thought.
Why do you think someone from a particularly fundamentalist church who opposes unmarried people having children would be interested in caring for all Scottish people, not just those who are GLEs (or like Regan, willing to sacrifice their rights so others lose theirs)?
The lady in question has stated quite unequivocally that she personally was opposed to the measures and would have voted against them, but she has no intention of dismantling the resulting laws.
Why do you think that people can never rise above their own priorities and prejudices? I didn't vote for my current councillor but he helped me out with my problems, because he was elected to represent all of the voters, not just the ones that supported him. You can't just assume that someone who has a moral objection to gay marriage must therefore hate gay people,
any more than you could assume that someone who believes in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion must believe in murdering babies.
I’ve hidden texted language which may not be acceptable anywhere, but is certainly not acceptable in Epiphanies BroJames, Temporary Hosting
You can't just assume that someone who has a moral objection to gay marriage must therefore hate gay people, any more than you could assume that someone who believes in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion must believe in murdering babies.
Is "murdering babies" your description for what you believe abortion involves?
I mean, obviously, you're entitled to your opinion on abortion, but I'm just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from on the issue.
There is nothing I would consider extreme in that clip, it’s an statement of the blindingly obvious - which is that institutional racism is a thing (see the latest report on the Met for another example) and that positions of power in our society are not distributed in proportion to the population. This is as true in Scotland as the rest of the UK.
You say blindingly obvious - its not blindingly obvious to me. People assert institutional racism exists all the time but they never provide any evidence other than pointing to disparities, which always exist and could be due to any number of reasons. At the same time they dismiss any evidence to the contrary, as happened with the government race commission report in 2021. That concluded there was no evidence of institutional racism, and was roundly condemned on the grounds that "we know for sure, (presumably because race theorists have theorised it) that there is institutional racism, so the report must be wrong, and is therefore evidence of systemic racism itself." Well that's convenient.
As for "positions of power in our society are not distributed in proportion to the population" - good grief. Thats a no-win situation if ever there was one. Proportions of what populations? Proportions of women? Black people? Asians? Left handed people?
Short people? Disabled people? Gays? Obese people? People from rural backgrounds? Are you saying that every single divergent attribute of humanity has to be exactly distributed in its proportion in every single position of power in society, or it is evidence of institutional bias? How could you ever manage to achieve that? How could you even measure it?
Forbes could rapidly find herself in trouble if she doesn't row back on her reactionary tendencies.
You see people say this, but I'm not so sure. British people are a great deal more socially conservative that commentators, experts and intellectuals think - Scottish people even more so.
@Hezekiah, I consider the language of your earlier post is unacceptable for Epiphanies, and am flagging it up to Epiphanies hosts and Admins being their call. In the meantime, please do not repeat.
There is nothing I would consider extreme in that clip, it’s an statement of the blindingly obvious - which is that institutional racism is a thing (see the latest report on the Met for another example) and that positions of power in our society are not distributed in proportion to the population. This is as true in Scotland as the rest of the UK.
You say blindingly obvious - its not blindingly obvious to me. People assert institutional racism exists all the time but they never provide any evidence other than pointing to disparities, which always exist and could be due to any number of reasons. At the same time they dismiss any evidence to the contrary, as happened with the government race commission report in 2021. That concluded there was no evidence of institutional racism, and was roundly condemned on the grounds that "we know for sure, (presumably because race theorists have theorised it) that there is institutional racism, so the report must be wrong, and is therefore evidence of systemic racism itself." Well that's convenient.
As for "positions of power in our society are not distributed in proportion to the population" - good grief. Thats a no-win situation if ever there was one. Proportions of what populations? Proportions of women? Black people? Asians? Left handed people?
Short people? Disabled people? Gays? Obese people? People from rural backgrounds? Are you saying that every single divergent attribute of humanity has to be exactly distributed in its proportion in every single position of power in society, or it is evidence of institutional bias? How could you ever manage to achieve that? How could you even measure it?
We know that institutional racism exists in society because many investigations have revealed that this is the case, such as the recent investigation showing that the Met Police as institutionally racist. They were also found to be institutionally racist 30 years ago in the wake of Stephen Lawrence's murder, so it seems like they have been institutionally racist all that time. I would guess that most people in the UK would agree that the Met are institutionally racist, because there is plenty of evidence showing that. Perhaps the fact that you can't see it is a you problem.
There's nothing objectionable I can see in what Humza Yousaf said in that clip, even less when taken in the context of the whole debate and including more of his speech than that clip.
Well its very divisive, and identity politics always is. Thats pretty objectionable.
Hezekiah,
Your post breaks the source rules for Epiphanies as though the actual content of the video is unobjectionable, it is hosted on a small numbers YouTube channel which also has questionable content and framing. That breaks the guidelines and consequently it has been hidden texted and the link broken
5. This forum will be more closely hosted than the rest of the Ship. For example, some phrases or sources may be ruled off-limits on a particular thread if they are seen as dehumanising, poor quality or containing disinformation. Circular discussions may be closed and tangents redirected. Hosts here may instruct persistently disruptive posters to cease and desist; admins may revoke posting privileges for Epiphanies.
Could you please carefully read the guidelines for this board and the rules for the boards as a whole especially C1
1. Don’t be a jerk – Lively, intelligent discussion is what we’re about. Jerkish behavior includes racism, sexism (and all the other negative -isms), plus trolling and flaming.
Any response to a host ruling goes in the Styx and not on this thread.
Louise
Epiphanies Host
I apologise for including the link. I was unaware of that. So sorry.
, (one of them an out and out bigot with little support - only one endorser out of both parliamentary parties)
I dont know whether the candidate in question is capable of winning the SNP election, as I don't know enough about Scottish politics, but I would sayd that it doesnt matter how many SNP grandees endorse anyone - all that matters is how the membership votes - and I would suspect that said candidate will do a great deal better than is generally thought.
Why do you think someone from a particularly fundamentalist church who opposes unmarried people having children would be interested in caring for all Scottish people, not just those who are GLEs (or like Regan, willing to sacrifice their rights so others lose theirs)?
The lady in question has stated quite unequivocally that she personally was opposed to the measures and would have voted against them, but she has no intention of dismantling the resulting laws.
Why do you think that people can never rise above their own priorities and prejudices? I didn't vote for my current councillor but he helped me out with my problems, because he was elected to represent all of the voters, not just the ones that supported him. You can't just assume that someone who has a moral objection to gay marriage must therefore hate gay people, I’ve hidden texted language which may not be acceptable anywhere, but is certainly not acceptable in Epiphanies BroJames, Purgatory Host
any more than you could assume that someone who believes in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion must believe in murdering babies.
Sorry, which measures are you talking about?
There is no non-homophobic reason for having a moral objection to gay marriage. People can be homophobic without saying that they hate gay people, and Forbes' beliefs very clearly show that she is homophobic in terms of beliefs. I'm sure she is polite to her gay colleagues but that doesn't justify homophobia.
There is nothing I would consider extreme in that clip, it’s an statement of the blindingly obvious - which is that institutional racism is a thing (see the latest report on the Met for another example) and that positions of power in our society are not distributed in proportion to the population. This is as true in Scotland as the rest of the UK.
You say blindingly obvious - its not blindingly obvious to me. People assert institutional racism exists all the time but they never provide any evidence other than pointing to disparities, which always exist and could be due to any number of reasons.
The opening part of that speech included lots of evidence of racism, though the particular edited version you linked to had omitted that. We're well passed the point of needing evidence for racism being systemic in society and institutions ( @Pomona has already addressed that), that's makes what Yousaf said a "statement of the blindingly obvious".
There's nothing objectionable I can see in what Humza Yousaf said in that clip, even less when taken in the context of the whole debate and including more of his speech than that clip.
Well its very divisive, and identity politics always is. Thats pretty objectionable.
In what way is objecting to racism 'identity politics' and conservative moral viewpoints not 'identity politics'? Being eg a conservative Christian is still an identity.
Standing up against injustice is inevitably divisive. Lots of people are racist, but making them annoyed doesn't make being anti-racism bad.
Forbes could rapidly find herself in trouble if she doesn't row back on her reactionary tendencies.
You see people say this, but I'm not so sure. British people are a great deal more socially conservative that commentators, experts and intellectuals think - Scottish people even more so.
Scottish people aren't more reactionary than English people, and Scotland has been reliably more socially progressive than England for a long time. I very much doubt that more Scottish people would oppose cohabitation or unmarried parents for example.
At the same time they dismiss any evidence to the contrary, as happened with the government race commission report in 2021.
There were a large number of problems with that report, from appointing a chair who had already stated that he didn't believe institutional racism existed, to selection of sources, quoting sources out of context (one example), citing academics who weren't consulted, to misusing work it did cite. That's just from a cursory trawl, I remember a significant number of people raising issues with the work when it was published and could probably find a lot more given a little time.
Forbes could rapidly find herself in trouble if she doesn't row back on her reactionary tendencies.
You see people say this, but I'm not so sure. British people are a great deal more socially conservative that commentators, experts and intellectuals think - Scottish people even more so.
There's been a lot of movement in opinion since same sex marriage was introduced, and the public seem to have shifted be largely in favour (except amongst the oldest demographics):
There's nothing objectionable I can see in what Humza Yousaf said in that clip, even less when taken in the context of the whole debate and including more of his speech than that clip.
Well its very divisive, and identity politics always is. Thats pretty objectionable.
Would you mind unpacking what you mean by "identity politics"?
@Hezekiah you do not appear to have read the forum guidelines for Epiphanies, if you have - you are not following them. If this continues, your posting access to Epiphanies will be suspended subject to review.
Doublethink, Admin
/Admin Warning
In addition, if posters wish to discuss abortion please start a separate thread.
There is no non-homophobic reason for having a moral objection to gay marriage. People can be homophobic without saying that they hate gay people, and Forbes' beliefs very clearly show that she is homophobic in terms of beliefs. I'm sure she is polite to her gay colleagues but that doesn't justify homophobia.
If you are a Christian, there certainly are moral objections to "gay marriage". The bible clearly states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Therefore a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman,
or a man and his wallpaper (or whatever)
, is not a "marriage", not as the term is determined in scripture anyway. You can have civil unions between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or any other combination the secular authorities deem is right and proper, because that is in their purview, but for a Christian church to redefine what is a sacrement is a very dodgy undertaking.
As for that being "homophobic", it’s only "homophobic" because that viewpoint has been deemed by its opponents to be so, which isn't an argument at all. It's just a slur.
(ETA corrected coding & hidden text for dehumanising rhetoric, DT, Temporary Hosting)
There is nothing I would consider extreme in that clip, it’s an statement of the blindingly obvious - which is that institutional racism is a thing (see the latest report on the Met for another example) and that positions of power in our society are not distributed in proportion to the population. This is as true in Scotland as the rest of the UK.
You say blindingly obvious - its not blindingly obvious to me. People assert institutional racism exists all the time but they never provide any evidence other than pointing to disparities, which always exist and could be due to any number of reasons.
The opening part of that speech included lots of evidence of racism, though the particular edited version you linked to had omitted that. We're well passed the point of needing evidence for racism being systemic in society and institutions ( @Pomona has already addressed that), that's makes what Yousaf said a "statement of the blindingly obvious".
Yes Im sure YOU may be well past the point where we need evidence for racism being systemic in society and institutions, but I remain unconvinced. As for lots of evidence of racism - nobody is denying that doesnt exist - but that is not the same as saying racism is systemic.
@Hezekiah you do not appear to have read the forum guidelines for Epiphanies, if you have - you are not following them. If this continues, your posting access to Epiphanies will be suspended subject to review.
Doublethink, Admin
/Admin Warning
In addition, if posters wish to discuss abortion please start a separate thread.
You might think that, many other Christians would disagree with your interpretation of Scripture. Start with "love your neighbour as yourself", and then ask how you can do that and deny people the chance to share their lives with another. "It's not good for a person to be alone" is the reason God gives for creating a partner for the first person, forcing people to be alone goes against the clear teaching of Scripture.
The membership have made their choice, but it's what voters think that counts
True enough.
The voters get their say in about a year(ish) when we go for a general election. And, loyalty to the SNP is probably stronger than (any) dislike of Yousaf. A lot of people will vote SNP as the only chance of getting a pro-indy MP under the stupid voting system for Westminster. The next Holyrood election would be more telling, especially for the regional vote, as voters have other pro-independence parties to vote for with a good chance of getting an MSP (and thus not "wasting their vote").
There is nothing I would consider extreme in that clip, it’s an statement of the blindingly obvious - which is that institutional racism is a thing (see the latest report on the Met for another example) and that positions of power in our society are not distributed in proportion to the population. This is as true in Scotland as the rest of the UK.
You say blindingly obvious - its not blindingly obvious to me. People assert institutional racism exists all the time but they never provide any evidence other than pointing to disparities, which always exist and could be due to any number of reasons.
The opening part of that speech included lots of evidence of racism, though the particular edited version you linked to had omitted that. We're well passed the point of needing evidence for racism being systemic in society and institutions ( @Pomona has already addressed that), that's makes what Yousaf said a "statement of the blindingly obvious".
Yes Im sure YOU may be well past the point where we need evidence for racism being systemic in society and institutions, but I remain unconvinced. As for lots of evidence of racism - nobody is denying that doesnt exist - but that is not the same as saying racism is systemic.
When basically every Black, Asian or other "non-White British" person will be able to tell you stories of racism they have experienced, that's basically the definition of 'systemic', something that is present everywhere. Are you really claiming that people are making up those stories?
Would you mind unpacking what you mean by "identity politics"?
Sure. Identity politics is the practice of dividing up society into an assortment of binary groups, usually characterised by immutable characteristics over which they have little or no control, and then setting them against each other to the advantage of one (termed the oppressed) and the detriment of the other (termed the oppressor). The decision as to which is which is usually based on their relative numbers (majority = oppressor/minority= oppressed or victim) but can be arbitrary. The political actors aim is to transfer resources (of various kinds) from the one to the other by "guilt-tripping" the "oppressor" group and stirring up resentment/envy in the "oppressed" group, thereby earning themselves much kudos (and possibly votes) for their "sensitivity", "open mindedness" and "liberalism", while actually causing suspicion, division, hatred and conflict.
Would you mind unpacking what you mean by "identity politics"?
Sure. Identity politics is the practice of dividing up society into an assortment of binary groups, usually characterised by immutable characteristics over which they have little or no control, and then setting them against each other to the advantage of one (termed the oppressed) and the detriment of the other (termed the oppressor). The decision as to which is which is usually based on their relative numbers (majority = oppressor/minority= oppressed or victim) but can be arbitrary. The political actors aim is to transfer resources (of various kinds) from the one to the other by "guilt-tripping" the "oppressor" group and stirring up resentment/envy in the "oppressed" group, thereby earning themselves much kudos (and possibly votes) for their "sensitivity", "open mindedness" and "liberalism", while actually causing suspicion, division, hatred and conflict.
Ah. So a strawman with no basis in reality. Thought as much.
And the Bible never "defines" marriage. It describes marriage as it was commonly understood in different times. Solomon having 700 wives and concubines, and God apparently having an issue not with their number but with their religious practices. Trying to turn passages from the Gospels about divorce or from the Epistles about the relationship between Christ and the church into "defining" marriage is to get scripture arse about face.
@Hezekiah I am suspending you from the forums for two weeks, you are ignoring warnings (violation of the ship’s 6th commandment) and not posting in accordance with the Epiphanies guidance. In addition, I think your posting violates the ships’s first commandment. On your return your posting privileges for Epiphanies will remain suspended for a minimum of another four weeks. You will need to pm an Admin to discuss reinstatement of Epiphanies posting privileges after that period.
Hezekiah, the bible has remarkably little to say about marriage. There are no accounts of marriage ceremonies of a religious rather than of a traditional cultural nature (and previous few of those). There are no Christian marriages. Luther was of the opinion that there was no biblical objection to polygamy. though he did not advise it. By and large Christianity has worked its. way around varieties of customary marriages rather than having a fixed view. Same sex marriage is simply a cultural change in the west that Christianity has to take into account. It's nothing to get worked up about either way. Sorry about your enforced absence: "there but for the grace of God" and all that...............
Hezekiah, the bible has remarkably little to say about marriage. There are no accounts of marriage ceremonies of a religious rather than of a traditional cultural nature (and previous few of those). There are no Christian marriages. Luther was of the opinion that there was no biblical objection to polygamy. though he did not advise it. By and large Christianity has worked its. way around varieties of customary marriages rather than having a fixed view. Same sex marriage is simply a cultural change in the west that Christianity has to take into account. It's nothing to get worked up about either way. Sorry about your enforced absence: "there but for the grace of God" and all that...............
We can probably assume that the people who wrote Leviticus wouldn't have liked same-sex marriage. But, then, they almost certainly wouldn't have liked marriage between snail-eaters and non-snail eaters, either, as long as we're doing extrapolations.
So allow us a minute to feel the relief of Yousaf’s victory, to take that breath that was denied so many in the 1980s, and to remember that as recently as 2014 the SNP was accepting huge donations from the businessman Brian Souter, who in 2000 spent up to £1m of his own money on the Keep the Clause campaign, which aimed to retain Section 2A (or Section 28 in England), the very legislation that imposed the silence and darkness on gay kids in school.
But across the beautiful country of Scotland, LGBT pupils and all those who remember the blackout and the beatings, can at least believe that the fog has lifted – for now
I'm humbled and moved by his piece.
He also points out what I've seen elsewhere - the claim that Humza is 'the first Muslim leader of a Western country' which surprised me. If that's the case it's something important to be celebrated and a shame about how it's been overshadowed here.
I personally think it was too close for comfort. I've seen a lot of comment saying roughly 'lots of people would just know what they read in the press which was greatly puffing Kate Forbes' and so they wouldn't realise how horrifying and worrying this was for a lot of LGBT+ people, but to me that's not entirely comforting. People's voting for anti-LGBT politicians matters - it endangers people even if the voters don't think they voted for that.
This, as I've mentioned before, isn't academic for my family. Discussions about safety have become part of our life because the current anti-trans panic can affect anyone who is not cis who presents in a non-cis way, leading potentially to harassment and even violence.
My family today is safer because Humza Yousaf won but it's not safe. Not while the anti-LGBT+ moral panic is still going on.
@Louise I can't think of any other Muslim national leaders in the West - Leo Varadkar is half-Indian but I don't know his father's religious background. It is depressing the way the supposedly left-leaning press has failed to get behind Yousaf (hmmm where have we seen that before!) and the Guardian had a terrible opinion piece on why the SNP is now doomed due to being 'divisive' for pushing for extremely minor reforms that are largely the same as the ones Theresa May's government was going to bring in. 16 is after all not actually very different to 18, and Scotland lowering the voting age to 16 was beneficial for everyone.
I see from today's Noos that Mr Yousaf's first FM Questions session at Holyrood was interrupted by protesters - but I'm not quite clear as to what they were protesting about...
One can only hope and pray, for Scotland's sake, that Mr Yousaf makes a success of his stint as FM. Interesting times, as they say.
He also points out what I've seen elsewhere - the claim that Humza is 'the first Muslim leader of a Western country' which surprised me. If that's the case it's something important to be celebrated and a shame about how it's been overshadowed here.
Is it any more important than Rishi Sunak becoming the first Hindu leader of a Western country?
He also points out what I've seen elsewhere - the claim that Humza is 'the first Muslim leader of a Western country' which surprised me. If that's the case it's something important to be celebrated and a shame about how it's been overshadowed here.
Is it any more important than Rishi Sunak becoming the first Hindu leader of a Western country?
And am I the only one who is going to point out that Scotland doesn't qualify as a country, under the commonly accepted usage of the word?
He also points out what I've seen elsewhere - the claim that Humza is 'the first Muslim leader of a Western country' which surprised me. If that's the case it's something important to be celebrated and a shame about how it's been overshadowed here.
Is it any more important than Rishi Sunak becoming the first Hindu leader of a Western country?
And am I the only one who is going to point out that Scotland doesn't qualify as a country, under the commonly accepted usage of the word?
A commonly accepted usage. Not every usage requires the country to be a sovereign state.
Comments
Nothing "may" about it. He does hold extreme beliefs. As for an easy ride from the press, maybe - but he has been boxing much cleverer than she has.
I dont know whether the candidate in question is capable of winning the SNP election, as I don't know enough about Scottish politics, but I would sayd that it doesnt matter how many SNP grandees endorse anyone - all that matters is how the membership votes - and I would suspect that said candidate will do a great deal better than is generally thought.
Why do you think someone from a particularly fundamentalist church who opposes unmarried people having children would be interested in caring for all Scottish people, not just those who are GLEs (or like Regan, willing to sacrifice their rights so others lose theirs)?
The mans a disgusting race-baiter.
Could you provide a transcript or non-video article, please?
I've been asked to move these comments from the Purgatory Thread.
Arethosemyfeet: Yousaf is unlikely to have any issues rallying the party given his overwhelming support among MSPs. Forbes could rapidly find herself in trouble if she doesn't row back on her reactionary tendencies.
I agree with you about Forbes. I doubt, however, that she would attempt to roll back on existing "progressive" social legislation, though she is unlikely to pursue policies to advance it further, and would permit the Gender Recognition Bill/Act to fail. My guess is that most SNP MSPs will go along with her approach to Gender Recognition given public opposition to the legislation. To some extent she would be able to improve her parliamentary base through patronage, though the understanding with the Greens is likely to collapse. Economic and fiscal policy is likely to shift more to centre, which could be a more serious source of conflict with her MSPs than her approach to the politics of identity. Her problem is that while her fiscal approach is likely to attract centre-right electors it may be insufficient to offset the losses to the left. Parliamentary management for her is likely to be difficult.
Yousaf, I agree, starts with the advantage of representing continuity and thereby inherits a strong position in the parliamentary party, though unlike Sturgeon will not have Swinney, the fixer, at his side. There is likely, however, to be a significant minority on the centre-right who have been emboldened by the leadership campaign and less inclined to be biddable than hitherto. Thus, Yousaf's decision to use rejection by Westminster of the Gender Recognition Bill as the centre-piece of his early approach to promote independence may be challenged by them and pragmatists not wishing to go into the trenches over a policy unpopular with the electorate (including nationalists). Even under Sturgeon there was rebellion on this matter which could grow in her absence. The problem for Yousaf would be how to placate them and maintain the pact with the Greens.
Thus, while Yousaf would be able to claim a parliamentary mandate amongst SNP MSPs, Forbes-Regan and their allies could claim a democratic legitimacy as representing SNP voters. Consequently, for the first time there could be a strong element within the parliamentary SNP that is not at one with the leadership, which would have implications for party management- appointment of ministers and composition of parliamentary committees. (Similar difficulties, of course, would be faced by a Forbes-led party).
To an outsider, like myself, it looks as though Scottish politics is about to become much more interesting and difficult to predict. In all honesty it's difficult to see what choice the SNP members should make between Yousaf and Forbes to promote the interest of their party and its cause. Perhaps a better choice is waiting in the wings should the winner of the present contest fail- yet another variable to stir the pot.
Post-script: Further to my earlier post, quoted above, one notes that he has already shifted ground on this matter, indicating that he will not pursue the matter in the courts if his legal advice indicates little chance of success, which is likely to be the case. Probably a wise move politically.
(ETA transcript of videoed remarks, DT, Admin)
Your post breaks the source rules for Epiphanies as though the actual content of the video is unobjectionable, it is hosted on a small numbers YouTube channel which also has questionable content and framing. That breaks the guidelines and consequently it has been hidden texted and the link broken
Could you please carefully read the guidelines for this board and the rules for the boards as a whole especially C1
Any response to a host ruling goes in the Styx and not on this thread.
Louise
Epiphanies Host
The lady in question has stated quite unequivocally that she personally was opposed to the measures and would have voted against them, but she has no intention of dismantling the resulting laws.
Why do you think that people can never rise above their own priorities and prejudices? I didn't vote for my current councillor but he helped me out with my problems, because he was elected to represent all of the voters, not just the ones that supported him. You can't just assume that someone who has a moral objection to gay marriage must therefore hate gay people,
I’ve hidden texted language which may not be acceptable anywhere, but is certainly not acceptable in Epiphanies BroJames, Temporary Hosting
@Hezekiah
Is "murdering babies" your description for what you believe abortion involves?
I mean, obviously, you're entitled to your opinion on abortion, but I'm just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from on the issue.
You say blindingly obvious - its not blindingly obvious to me. People assert institutional racism exists all the time but they never provide any evidence other than pointing to disparities, which always exist and could be due to any number of reasons. At the same time they dismiss any evidence to the contrary, as happened with the government race commission report in 2021. That concluded there was no evidence of institutional racism, and was roundly condemned on the grounds that "we know for sure, (presumably because race theorists have theorised it) that there is institutional racism, so the report must be wrong, and is therefore evidence of systemic racism itself." Well that's convenient.
As for "positions of power in our society are not distributed in proportion to the population" - good grief. Thats a no-win situation if ever there was one. Proportions of what populations? Proportions of women? Black people? Asians? Left handed people?
Short people? Disabled people? Gays? Obese people? People from rural backgrounds? Are you saying that every single divergent attribute of humanity has to be exactly distributed in its proportion in every single position of power in society, or it is evidence of institutional bias? How could you ever manage to achieve that? How could you even measure it?
You see people say this, but I'm not so sure. British people are a great deal more socially conservative that commentators, experts and intellectuals think - Scottish people even more so.
BroJames, Temporary Hosting
We know that institutional racism exists in society because many investigations have revealed that this is the case, such as the recent investigation showing that the Met Police as institutionally racist. They were also found to be institutionally racist 30 years ago in the wake of Stephen Lawrence's murder, so it seems like they have been institutionally racist all that time. I would guess that most people in the UK would agree that the Met are institutionally racist, because there is plenty of evidence showing that. Perhaps the fact that you can't see it is a you problem.
Well its very divisive, and identity politics always is. Thats pretty objectionable.
I apologise for including the link. I was unaware of that. So sorry.
Sorry, which measures are you talking about?
There is no non-homophobic reason for having a moral objection to gay marriage. People can be homophobic without saying that they hate gay people, and Forbes' beliefs very clearly show that she is homophobic in terms of beliefs. I'm sure she is polite to her gay colleagues but that doesn't justify homophobia.
In what way is objecting to racism 'identity politics' and conservative moral viewpoints not 'identity politics'? Being eg a conservative Christian is still an identity.
Standing up against injustice is inevitably divisive. Lots of people are racist, but making them annoyed doesn't make being anti-racism bad.
Scottish people aren't more reactionary than English people, and Scotland has been reliably more socially progressive than England for a long time. I very much doubt that more Scottish people would oppose cohabitation or unmarried parents for example.
There were a large number of problems with that report, from appointing a chair who had already stated that he didn't believe institutional racism existed, to selection of sources, quoting sources out of context (one example), citing academics who weren't consulted, to misusing work it did cite. That's just from a cursory trawl, I remember a significant number of people raising issues with the work when it was published and could probably find a lot more given a little time.
There's been a lot of movement in opinion since same sex marriage was introduced, and the public seem to have shifted be largely in favour (except amongst the oldest demographics):
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/support-for-marriage-of-same-sex-couple
(Compare with the figures from 10 years ago https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/03/19/same-sex-marriage-britain )
Would you mind unpacking what you mean by "identity politics"?
@Hezekiah you do not appear to have read the forum guidelines for Epiphanies, if you have - you are not following them. If this continues, your posting access to Epiphanies will be suspended subject to review.
Doublethink, Admin
/Admin Warning
In addition, if posters wish to discuss abortion please start a separate thread.
If you are a Christian, there certainly are moral objections to "gay marriage". The bible clearly states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Therefore a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman,
As for that being "homophobic", it’s only "homophobic" because that viewpoint has been deemed by its opponents to be so, which isn't an argument at all. It's just a slur.
(ETA corrected coding & hidden text for dehumanising rhetoric, DT, Temporary Hosting)
Yes Im sure YOU may be well past the point where we need evidence for racism being systemic in society and institutions, but I remain unconvinced. As for lots of evidence of racism - nobody is denying that doesnt exist - but that is not the same as saying racism is systemic.
True enough.
Hold on. I wasn't discussing abortion.
Sure. Identity politics is the practice of dividing up society into an assortment of binary groups, usually characterised by immutable characteristics over which they have little or no control, and then setting them against each other to the advantage of one (termed the oppressed) and the detriment of the other (termed the oppressor). The decision as to which is which is usually based on their relative numbers (majority = oppressor/minority= oppressed or victim) but can be arbitrary. The political actors aim is to transfer resources (of various kinds) from the one to the other by "guilt-tripping" the "oppressor" group and stirring up resentment/envy in the "oppressed" group, thereby earning themselves much kudos (and possibly votes) for their "sensitivity", "open mindedness" and "liberalism", while actually causing suspicion, division, hatred and conflict.
Ah. So a strawman with no basis in reality. Thought as much.
And the Bible never "defines" marriage. It describes marriage as it was commonly understood in different times. Solomon having 700 wives and concubines, and God apparently having an issue not with their number but with their religious practices. Trying to turn passages from the Gospels about divorce or from the Epistles about the relationship between Christ and the church into "defining" marriage is to get scripture arse about face.
@Hezekiah I am suspending you from the forums for two weeks, you are ignoring warnings (violation of the ship’s 6th commandment) and not posting in accordance with the Epiphanies guidance. In addition, I think your posting violates the ships’s first commandment. On your return your posting privileges for Epiphanies will remain suspended for a minimum of another four weeks. You will need to pm an Admin to discuss reinstatement of Epiphanies posting privileges after that period.
Doublethink, Admin
/Admin
We can probably assume that the people who wrote Leviticus wouldn't have liked same-sex marriage. But, then, they almost certainly wouldn't have liked marriage between snail-eaters and non-snail eaters, either, as long as we're doing extrapolations.
(paywall but free registration)
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/humza-yousafs-victory-will-allow-lgbt-people-to-breathe-for-now-2238110
I'm humbled and moved by his piece.
He also points out what I've seen elsewhere - the claim that Humza is 'the first Muslim leader of a Western country' which surprised me. If that's the case it's something important to be celebrated and a shame about how it's been overshadowed here.
I personally think it was too close for comfort. I've seen a lot of comment saying roughly 'lots of people would just know what they read in the press which was greatly puffing Kate Forbes' and so they wouldn't realise how horrifying and worrying this was for a lot of LGBT+ people, but to me that's not entirely comforting. People's voting for anti-LGBT politicians matters - it endangers people even if the voters don't think they voted for that.
This, as I've mentioned before, isn't academic for my family. Discussions about safety have become part of our life because the current anti-trans panic can affect anyone who is not cis who presents in a non-cis way, leading potentially to harassment and even violence.
My family today is safer because Humza Yousaf won but it's not safe. Not while the anti-LGBT+ moral panic is still going on.
One can only hope and pray, for Scotland's sake, that Mr Yousaf makes a success of his stint as FM. Interesting times, as they say.
Is it any more important than Rishi Sunak becoming the first Hindu leader of a Western country?
And am I the only one who is going to point out that Scotland doesn't qualify as a country, under the commonly accepted usage of the word?
A commonly accepted usage. Not every usage requires the country to be a sovereign state.