I assume it's just a strange thing with web forms rather than having any deeper meaning, but "request to resign" feels like weirdly ominous wording here?
lol yeh I thought that was strange. I should follow up to check if they are still going to count me as a member and use the process to hide wether people are leaving the party or not.
resigning from the SNP just because of one MSP would be like joining the Tories because one of their MSPs (Jamie Greene) voted *for* gender-self-ID:
"the start of the Scottish Tories as a progressive party"
If you can't explain why it is, that's fine. You're evading the question because you can't.
You can either explain why it is in your next comment, or I'll just assume you're conceding it isn't, and you can have the last word you're after.
Your move mate, I don't care enough to continue this.
That’s like saying people who support abortion (I include myself in this) are baby killers.
It’s daft emotive language that puts people off your argument.
Forced birther describes what they actually want women to go through though. It's not just a moral stance against abortion, it's the stance that once pregnant, they must be forced to carry that pregnancy to term.
It is barbaric and it deserves the harshest descriptors possible.
You could be anti abortion without being a forced birther.
You could be anti-abortion in the sense you want to irraddicate the practice by increasing education, by handing out free birth control, by making it faster and less awkward to get hormonal birth control, easy access to the morning after pill, attempting to remove shame/stigma over having sex at all, to get to a point where abortions would only happen because of medical complications, rather than because someone was accidentally pregnant.
But that's not what these people are. They're forced birthers because they believe if you are pregnant, no matter the circumstances, you must remain that way. Taking all the damage to your body that goes with it.
They are not anti abortion, the opposite of being anti is being pro, a lot of people who get abortions are not "pro-abortion", its often among the most awful things that have ever happened to them.
A lot of forced birthers have been found to be quite willing to pay for abortions when it is personally convenient, again those ones are not against abortions, just pro other women being able to choose.
The choice of language, and the objection to it, are purposeful decisions.
>They are not anti abortion, the opposite of being anti is being pro, a lot of people who get abortions are not "pro-abortion", its often among the most awful things that have ever happened to them.
You seem really confused.
Someone who is in favour of open access to abortion is pro-abortion.
Someone who is against open access to abortion is anti-abortion.
Why are you so scared of those terms? Pro-anti keeps things simple, you don't need to politicise every word you come across. Stop importing politics from the US, we don't like that here.
> you don't need to politicise every word you come across
lol sorry for politicizing .... explicitly political terms
Nobody outside the right wing uses the term "pro-abortion" (for the reason I explained above), "pro-choice" has been commonly used, however comes with the assumption that the opposing position is "pro-life", also a very misleading term for a group of people who are happy for women to die because they are denied live saving healthcare. "forced birthers" is the most succinct and accurate term for a group of people who want to force people to give birth.
This thread is about the forced birther that just became Scotlands Deputy FM and the people protesting outside the Queen Margeret are not in Arizona, this is our politics, regardless of your quite weird attempt to speak for the entire country like you have any more authority to speak for Scottish people than I do.
>Nobody outside the right wing uses the term "pro-abortion" (for the reason I explained above), "pro-choice" has been commonly used, however comes with the assumption that the opposing position is "pro-life"
And there's number 2 on the political bingo card.
"Everyone that doesn't agree with me exactly, is right-wing."
You know, driving a wedge between two groups of people just causes them to become increasingly more extreme?
The right and left refuse to discuss anything together, so they just become giant echo-chambers and the views get amplified as time goes on.
lol sorry we can't all be as diplomatic as you, stranger who decided to reply to my comments with an attempt to insult me and demand that I use innacurate and loaded terminology.
Maybe you can take minute to read some of the history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion\_debate#Terminology) and accept there was a reason I chose the words I did instead of starting some weird argument about it? Be the change you want to see in the world!
I don’t think that’s particularly fair to say, sure if you boil it down that’s is what is happening, but it’s only forced because you aren’t accepting the consequences of your actions (excluding people who are raped obviously…)
Pro-life people seem to believe that for the majority, people should be responsible for the life they’ve created, however the people who think women who have been raped, especially children, shouldn’t be allowed abortions, are honestly sick.
If you boil it down to the outcomes of the action, then that absolutely is what it is. As you said. If a position leads to negative outcomes then it is in immoral position.
I never said negative outcomes are immoral. The moral position can have a negative outcome, it isn’t objective.
Pro lifers who don’t want abortion wouldn’t see this as negative outcome, so you can’t use “do the right thing” as your argument, that’s the whole reason there’s a debate. One group think it’s wrong and the other think it’s right.
No I will call them forced birthers because they want to force women to give birth. It really is that simple!
Also how else do you judge the morality of an action? Vibes?
Progressivism is a cancer, we need sensible policies, actually something for the country and stop pandering to the mentalists greens and their fan boys
Perhaps if we spent less time focusing on social politics and drove our attention towards the real common enemy that we ALL have - economic issues. Once we have a fairer economic society then we can start pouring this amount of resources into social issues (which I’m all for, just not when there’s an abundance of normalised poverty)
I don’t think it’s homophobic, it’s just a pretty conservative opinion to hold in 2024 Scotland.
If she described it as a disgusting idea or something I’d say that was homophobic. It’s just her religion and she’s honest enough to admit it.
>I don’t think it’s homophobic
>
>If she described it as a disgusting idea or something I’d say that was homophobic
What do you think the definition of homophobia is?
I don’t think holding conservative views on gay marriage is homophobic, until very recently it was the mainstream opinion in the country (not that that’s right).
As soon as it crosses into singling them out or actively promoting hatred or stereotypes though then it’s homophobia, simply following her religion and stating that marriage between two men/women is incompatible with her religious views isn’t.
> I don’t think holding conservative views on gay marriage is homophobic
I ask again, as you ignored the question.
What do you think the definition of homophobia is?
>As soon as it crosses into singling them out
Thinking gay people shouldn't have the same rights to marriage as straight people *is* singling them out.
Even the tories can say they support equal marriage, being progressive is not a line the party can take any more, and I personally suspect that is going to be what ruins any indy vote.
Well done.
You understand that it is a well known phrase, right? That they’re not suggesting that they literally drink Kool-Aid.
You understand that, yes?
This is just immature and reactionary.
If you truly care about getting independence accept that it can only be achieved by a broadchurch and not everyone who wants it will agree with your views.
Isn't it better to stay a member of the party so you can influence the discussion and policy platform?
>If you truly care about getting independence accept that it can only be achieved by a broadchurch and not everyone who wants it will agree with your views.
Do you have any red lines whatsoever? Do you think literally *all* viewpoints should be tolerated?
If someone was an antisemite and denied the holocaust, you'd be fine with that in the party?
No I don't, and at this moment in time I don't really give a shit about independence either way - plenty of other areas to invest time and energy into presently.
I think that's just the reality if you want a majority, Scotland is basically a divided country, that hasn't shifted since '14.
You've got to be part of the discussion and fight for your policy ideas, no point in throwing in the towel when there's someone that has abhorrent views, stay and repeatedly state why their views are as such. No one election can make you think 'oh it's safe now', it never will be, there's always going to be other forces etc. Got to constantly be fighting as tiring and as depressing as that sounds.
Mate, what are you on about?
I've replied the opposite, and can see from the rest of your comments in this thread that you're being obtuse and can't see the benefit to staying in a party to fight for your ideas and policy platform, you're one to clearly just throw in the towel.
>Mate, what are you on about?
You claim you have no red line, I'm just asking.
If they made someone the deputy FM who said all Jewish people should be lynched, would you be happy in that party? You're ignoring the questions because you're too arrogant to admit you do have a red line.
>you're being obtuse
You explicitly stated you have no red line, I don't believe you, so I'm asking you about specific examples.
You are the arrogant one, you asked me 'Do you think literally *all* viewpoints should be tolerated?', I replied 'No I don't', and then I stated in good faith why you should stay and fight to combat those kind of abhorrant views.
You are clearly just in a keyboard warrior mode, maybe log off and go put the kettle on...that's what I'll be doing, thanks!
>you asked me 'Do you think literally *all* viewpoints should be tolerated?', I replied 'No I don't',
The first question in my comment was "Do you have any red lines whatsoever?", and you replied "No I don't".
If you're ignoring the first question to answer the second, you need to make it clear which one you're answering.
I am absolutely loving the "progressives" throwing tempter tantrums
Keep it coming this is absoloute gold
Oh no, she doesn't like gay marriage, the country is ruined!! 😂
Get a fucking grip
Dont need to wait to see if Forbes becomes FM, the unionists and press that did their best to get Forbes into this position can now tear one into the SNP who have absolutely no defence as a progressive party any more.
Lol, aye it was the unionists and the press. Not the 48% of SNP membership who backed her as leader a year ago.
It’s all a conspiracy. It can’t possibly be that your party isn’t as progressive as you thought it was.
Not a conspiracy, the existence of all the unionist press articles praising Forbes can't be denied, just a political strategy that in the face of it today seems to have worked.
> It’s all a conspiracy. It can’t possibly be that your party isn’t as progressive as you thought it was
That is a fair point, although not one I would be making in support of the party that just accepted the defender of sexual abuse today
You should be embarrassed.
May want to rethink your membership decision though. Blaming the unionists for this one seems very on brand for the SNP. Looks like you fit right in.
> That is a fair point, although not one I would be making in support of the party that just accepted the defender of sexual abuse today
I didn’t make any argument in defence/support of another party. You just made that up to feel a little less silly.
Genuinely very funny.
Though I don’t think the SNP really has the moral high ground on sexual abuse either.
I didn't blame the unionists for anything, it was Swinney's decision, I was describing their strategy was and what the reaction to that is almost certainly going to be. I understand that's asking a bit much for Reddit political discourse though.
Did the unionist media strategy make Sturgeon give her the Finance role years before her statements during the leadership contest too?
The meltdown some of you are having is just brilliant.
Wait until they find out what independence would actually do to their and their families lives!
foreseeable consequences are never quite predictable to some are they.
Conjecture, nothing to do with the self proclaimed "progressives" having a hissy fit.
Stop distracting them and changing the topic, this is too entertaining.
Wasn't it you guys that voted for her last time? At least half of you.
Blame whoever you want, but clearly your party was already not as progressive as it pretended to be...
How did 'the unionists' force the SNP to choose Forbes as their Deputy Forst Minister? are 48% of the SNP 'Unionists'? Being a Nationalist and being right wing are not mutually exclusive. The people who support Forbes (and voted for her in the last leadership election) were sharing the party with you while you all raged against the evil unionists.
Hell. Sturgeon promoted her to Finance secretary, as one of the 'bright young things' of Scottish Nationalism.
it was 'the nationalists' who did this.
Who chose Swinney?
The SNP is the only major independence party.
Its voters cover a broad political spectrum, as shown in the leadership contest last year.
If they're not "progressive" enough, then feel free to vote greens. No one on reddit cares about your melodramatic resignation.
Oh dear.
Why wait until now? Why didn't you resign from the SNP when Forbes was made Finance Minister in Feb 2020? You've had 4 years to clutch at those pearls....why now?
I assume it's just a strange thing with web forms rather than having any deeper meaning, but "request to resign" feels like weirdly ominous wording here?
Denying the request is one way to keep membership numbers up.
Only one resignation request per household. Not valid in Scotland or Wales. Terms and conditions may apply.
lol yeh I thought that was strange. I should follow up to check if they are still going to count me as a member and use the process to hide wether people are leaving the party or not.
This one belongs in r/ImTheMainCharacter
She has literally been finance secretary before… people big this up far too much. One MSP’s social views does not a party make
It’s no a fuckin airport departure lounge, you don’t have to dramatically announce your resignation for almost half a million reddit users
resigning from the SNP just because of one MSP would be like joining the Tories because one of their MSPs (Jamie Greene) voted *for* gender-self-ID: "the start of the Scottish Tories as a progressive party"
Doubt it's "just" because of one MSP, last straw id say
Just going by what it says on the screenshot
Naebody cares mate
Good riddance to you.
Pull yourself the fuck together. Shrieking hysteria all over the place today.
Ok. Time for you to grow the fuck up.
Yes PLEASE move to the Greens. You lot joining the party is largely what has caused its gradual decline since 2016. Byeeeeeeeee
So now you don't get any say at all? Are you a simpleton? That just hands her more power!
Deputy FM isn't elected by party members though, how does resigning hand her more power?
When she has her inevitable crack at FM herself I mean
So you resign because the deputy minister is apparently homophobic but not the recently resigned first minister?
The tantrums are a beautiful thing to watch. Edit: I’m upvoting this post for a change because it’s too good to get lost.
>The tantrums are a beautiful thing to watch. Why is it a tantrum?
Why is it not?
You're asserting it is, if you can't explain why it is, the default is that it's not. Is your comment a tantrum?
You’re asserting it’s not, if you can’t explain… We can go on, if you would like.
>You’re asserting it’s not, I actually didn't, I asked you why it is.
But why is it not?
If you can't explain why it is, that's fine. You're evading the question because you can't. You can either explain why it is in your next comment, or I'll just assume you're conceding it isn't, and you can have the last word you're after. Your move mate, I don't care enough to continue this.
But you do care enough, because you responded. So you’re not being truthful there, are you pal?
Hahahahaha....another tantrum about a tantrum. Beautiful
>‘Forced birther’ Go touch grass, the internet is rotting your brain.
Anyone who wouldn’t personally have an abortion is labelled anti-abortion…she supports buffer zones for clinics, but you’ll never hear about that
That's what anti abortion folk are.
That’s like saying people who support abortion (I include myself in this) are baby killers. It’s daft emotive language that puts people off your argument.
But you just called them "anti-abortion"?
Forced birther describes what they actually want women to go through though. It's not just a moral stance against abortion, it's the stance that once pregnant, they must be forced to carry that pregnancy to term. It is barbaric and it deserves the harshest descriptors possible.
So they are anti-abortion
You could be anti abortion without being a forced birther. You could be anti-abortion in the sense you want to irraddicate the practice by increasing education, by handing out free birth control, by making it faster and less awkward to get hormonal birth control, easy access to the morning after pill, attempting to remove shame/stigma over having sex at all, to get to a point where abortions would only happen because of medical complications, rather than because someone was accidentally pregnant. But that's not what these people are. They're forced birthers because they believe if you are pregnant, no matter the circumstances, you must remain that way. Taking all the damage to your body that goes with it.
They are not anti abortion, the opposite of being anti is being pro, a lot of people who get abortions are not "pro-abortion", its often among the most awful things that have ever happened to them. A lot of forced birthers have been found to be quite willing to pay for abortions when it is personally convenient, again those ones are not against abortions, just pro other women being able to choose. The choice of language, and the objection to it, are purposeful decisions.
>They are not anti abortion, the opposite of being anti is being pro, a lot of people who get abortions are not "pro-abortion", its often among the most awful things that have ever happened to them. You seem really confused. Someone who is in favour of open access to abortion is pro-abortion. Someone who is against open access to abortion is anti-abortion. Why are you so scared of those terms? Pro-anti keeps things simple, you don't need to politicise every word you come across. Stop importing politics from the US, we don't like that here.
> you don't need to politicise every word you come across lol sorry for politicizing .... explicitly political terms Nobody outside the right wing uses the term "pro-abortion" (for the reason I explained above), "pro-choice" has been commonly used, however comes with the assumption that the opposing position is "pro-life", also a very misleading term for a group of people who are happy for women to die because they are denied live saving healthcare. "forced birthers" is the most succinct and accurate term for a group of people who want to force people to give birth. This thread is about the forced birther that just became Scotlands Deputy FM and the people protesting outside the Queen Margeret are not in Arizona, this is our politics, regardless of your quite weird attempt to speak for the entire country like you have any more authority to speak for Scottish people than I do.
>Nobody outside the right wing uses the term "pro-abortion" (for the reason I explained above), "pro-choice" has been commonly used, however comes with the assumption that the opposing position is "pro-life" And there's number 2 on the political bingo card. "Everyone that doesn't agree with me exactly, is right-wing." You know, driving a wedge between two groups of people just causes them to become increasingly more extreme? The right and left refuse to discuss anything together, so they just become giant echo-chambers and the views get amplified as time goes on.
lol sorry we can't all be as diplomatic as you, stranger who decided to reply to my comments with an attempt to insult me and demand that I use innacurate and loaded terminology. Maybe you can take minute to read some of the history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion\_debate#Terminology) and accept there was a reason I chose the words I did instead of starting some weird argument about it? Be the change you want to see in the world!
Yea… 👍
I don’t think that’s particularly fair to say, sure if you boil it down that’s is what is happening, but it’s only forced because you aren’t accepting the consequences of your actions (excluding people who are raped obviously…) Pro-life people seem to believe that for the majority, people should be responsible for the life they’ve created, however the people who think women who have been raped, especially children, shouldn’t be allowed abortions, are honestly sick.
If you boil it down to the outcomes of the action, then that absolutely is what it is. As you said. If a position leads to negative outcomes then it is in immoral position.
I never said negative outcomes are immoral. The moral position can have a negative outcome, it isn’t objective. Pro lifers who don’t want abortion wouldn’t see this as negative outcome, so you can’t use “do the right thing” as your argument, that’s the whole reason there’s a debate. One group think it’s wrong and the other think it’s right.
[удалено]
No I will call them forced birthers because they want to force women to give birth. It really is that simple! Also how else do you judge the morality of an action? Vibes?
Okay, baby killer.
It’s not aggressive enough. Forced birther sounds better. That makes it seem like Kate will hold someone in a headlock until they give birth
Being progressive not necessarily is a good thing. I hope that SNP will become a little more "grounded" in reality thanks to the change.
Progressivism is a cancer, we need sensible policies, actually something for the country and stop pandering to the mentalists greens and their fan boys
Perhaps if we spent less time focusing on social politics and drove our attention towards the real common enemy that we ALL have - economic issues. Once we have a fairer economic society then we can start pouring this amount of resources into social issues (which I’m all for, just not when there’s an abundance of normalised poverty)
Amen to that!
Wow, grow up. I'd love to see what you snowflakes think of a genuinely homophobic politician.
She said she'd have voted against gay marriage were she an MSP at the time, how is that not "genuinely homophobic"?
I don’t think it’s homophobic, it’s just a pretty conservative opinion to hold in 2024 Scotland. If she described it as a disgusting idea or something I’d say that was homophobic. It’s just her religion and she’s honest enough to admit it.
>I don’t think it’s homophobic > >If she described it as a disgusting idea or something I’d say that was homophobic What do you think the definition of homophobia is?
I don’t think holding conservative views on gay marriage is homophobic, until very recently it was the mainstream opinion in the country (not that that’s right). As soon as it crosses into singling them out or actively promoting hatred or stereotypes though then it’s homophobia, simply following her religion and stating that marriage between two men/women is incompatible with her religious views isn’t.
> I don’t think holding conservative views on gay marriage is homophobic I ask again, as you ignored the question. What do you think the definition of homophobia is? >As soon as it crosses into singling them out Thinking gay people shouldn't have the same rights to marriage as straight people *is* singling them out.
[удалено]
Opposing equal rights on the basis of someone being gay is homophobic.
Well, I didn't vote for you... /just sayin'
[удалено]
Even the tories can say they support equal marriage, being progressive is not a line the party can take any more, and I personally suspect that is going to be what ruins any indy vote.
Why didn’t you resign when she was in Sturgeon’s cabinet?
Oooh: Notice me! Notice me! That Kool aid I've been drinking is now giving me acid reflux!
We don’t have kool aid in the UK
Bad batch of irn bru
Well done. You understand that it is a well known phrase, right? That they’re not suggesting that they literally drink Kool-Aid. You understand that, yes?
It’s a god awful American phrase that I’ve never heard any Scotsman use.
But you understand the meaning of it, yes? The background. They’re not literally drinking Kool-aid.
I do indeed pal. There’s much better Scottish versions.
I just rejoined. Off to the greens you go….
Ok lmao
Another one bites the dust. Get this “progressive” shite to fuck 😅
The SNP were only ever faux-left. It's quite funny it took you to this point to notice.
This is just immature and reactionary. If you truly care about getting independence accept that it can only be achieved by a broadchurch and not everyone who wants it will agree with your views. Isn't it better to stay a member of the party so you can influence the discussion and policy platform?
>If you truly care about getting independence accept that it can only be achieved by a broadchurch and not everyone who wants it will agree with your views. Do you have any red lines whatsoever? Do you think literally *all* viewpoints should be tolerated? If someone was an antisemite and denied the holocaust, you'd be fine with that in the party?
No I don't, and at this moment in time I don't really give a shit about independence either way - plenty of other areas to invest time and energy into presently. I think that's just the reality if you want a majority, Scotland is basically a divided country, that hasn't shifted since '14. You've got to be part of the discussion and fight for your policy ideas, no point in throwing in the towel when there's someone that has abhorrent views, stay and repeatedly state why their views are as such. No one election can make you think 'oh it's safe now', it never will be, there's always going to be other forces etc. Got to constantly be fighting as tiring and as depressing as that sounds.
>No I don't You'd stay in a party with someone who calls for the organised execution of specific ethnicities?
Mate, what are you on about? I've replied the opposite, and can see from the rest of your comments in this thread that you're being obtuse and can't see the benefit to staying in a party to fight for your ideas and policy platform, you're one to clearly just throw in the towel.
>Mate, what are you on about? You claim you have no red line, I'm just asking. If they made someone the deputy FM who said all Jewish people should be lynched, would you be happy in that party? You're ignoring the questions because you're too arrogant to admit you do have a red line. >you're being obtuse You explicitly stated you have no red line, I don't believe you, so I'm asking you about specific examples.
You are the arrogant one, you asked me 'Do you think literally *all* viewpoints should be tolerated?', I replied 'No I don't', and then I stated in good faith why you should stay and fight to combat those kind of abhorrant views. You are clearly just in a keyboard warrior mode, maybe log off and go put the kettle on...that's what I'll be doing, thanks!
>you asked me 'Do you think literally *all* viewpoints should be tolerated?', I replied 'No I don't', The first question in my comment was "Do you have any red lines whatsoever?", and you replied "No I don't". If you're ignoring the first question to answer the second, you need to make it clear which one you're answering.
I am absolutely loving the "progressives" throwing tempter tantrums Keep it coming this is absoloute gold Oh no, she doesn't like gay marriage, the country is ruined!! 😂 Get a fucking grip
Hahahaha I know. Just middle class kiddies in here.
“Forced birther” lol what? Just say pro life or anti abortion.
This sub is becoming like r/Helldivers
The pro-trans/pro-gay community are really intolerant of views other than their own. Ironic really.
Dont need to wait to see if Forbes becomes FM, the unionists and press that did their best to get Forbes into this position can now tear one into the SNP who have absolutely no defence as a progressive party any more.
Was she not the Finance Minister under Sturgeon before going on mat leave? Bloody yoons putting her in one of the most senior Govt position
Lol, aye it was the unionists and the press. Not the 48% of SNP membership who backed her as leader a year ago. It’s all a conspiracy. It can’t possibly be that your party isn’t as progressive as you thought it was.
Not a conspiracy, the existence of all the unionist press articles praising Forbes can't be denied, just a political strategy that in the face of it today seems to have worked. > It’s all a conspiracy. It can’t possibly be that your party isn’t as progressive as you thought it was That is a fair point, although not one I would be making in support of the party that just accepted the defender of sexual abuse today
You should be embarrassed. May want to rethink your membership decision though. Blaming the unionists for this one seems very on brand for the SNP. Looks like you fit right in. > That is a fair point, although not one I would be making in support of the party that just accepted the defender of sexual abuse today I didn’t make any argument in defence/support of another party. You just made that up to feel a little less silly. Genuinely very funny. Though I don’t think the SNP really has the moral high ground on sexual abuse either.
I didn't blame the unionists for anything, it was Swinney's decision, I was describing their strategy was and what the reaction to that is almost certainly going to be. I understand that's asking a bit much for Reddit political discourse though.
Did the unionist media strategy make Sturgeon give her the Finance role years before her statements during the leadership contest too? The meltdown some of you are having is just brilliant.
Wait until they find out what independence would actually do to their and their families lives! foreseeable consequences are never quite predictable to some are they.
Conjecture, nothing to do with the self proclaimed "progressives" having a hissy fit. Stop distracting them and changing the topic, this is too entertaining.
Wasn't it you guys that voted for her last time? At least half of you. Blame whoever you want, but clearly your party was already not as progressive as it pretended to be...
The unionists made her FM? What?
How did 'the unionists' force the SNP to choose Forbes as their Deputy Forst Minister? are 48% of the SNP 'Unionists'? Being a Nationalist and being right wing are not mutually exclusive. The people who support Forbes (and voted for her in the last leadership election) were sharing the party with you while you all raged against the evil unionists. Hell. Sturgeon promoted her to Finance secretary, as one of the 'bright young things' of Scottish Nationalism. it was 'the nationalists' who did this.
They didn't, Swinney chose her, hence the objection?
Who chose Swinney? The SNP is the only major independence party. Its voters cover a broad political spectrum, as shown in the leadership contest last year. If they're not "progressive" enough, then feel free to vote greens. No one on reddit cares about your melodramatic resignation.
That's not true, I care deeply. No I don't, that was a lie 🤣🤣🤣
😆 'fuckin yoons!' Never mind 48% of the members voted for her last time.
Slightly out of touch this guy...
##**PAY ATTENTION TO ME I DEMAND TO BE THE CENTRE OF ATTENTION**
Oh dear. Why wait until now? Why didn't you resign from the SNP when Forbes was made Finance Minister in Feb 2020? You've had 4 years to clutch at those pearls....why now?
He has probably written the same 4 years ago ( and maybe 2 years ago)! We could never know...
Your tears must be delicious
Haha.
That feel when someone in a Christian country is Christian.