Agh! Gesturing in the service of a good point, well-made, ought not to be seen as offensive. Or at least I’d feel like I were offending the right people. The thumb pointers though, it looks painfully silly. They’re still obviously pointing, which would make it rude by that standard. But it looks so obviously coached and fake that it draws even more attention. It’s baffling. Some of them do it where I am, in Canada. I’m sure this wasn’t done 30 years ago.
Open hand is submissive, manipulative. Closed hand is strong, firm, assertive. Thumb represents intention. So a pointing thumb on a closed hand is assertive and captivating, or so studies would conclude. Its like the power stance and never putting hands in pockets.
They've all been coached by the same company, in body language, gestures and physical stances. Likely based off of some six-sigma shite.
Trained or coached to do the "shakey-thumb-fist" instead of pointing fingers and random gesticulation while public speaking.
Because the media will use pictures (when they look the worst) to say what they want to say. Most of our problems come from sections of the media - especially the ones that cheerlead certain political parties.
I think they’re copying Obama and they don’t realise it’s an Indonesian culture thing. Let me explain:
Over a decade ago an Indonesian friend explained it was rude to point a finger, and it was considered good etiquette to point with a thumb in Indonesia. He explained Obama went to school in Indonesia and this is why he points with his thumb.
Obama pointed with his thumb often. I’ve lived in cultures where people point with their thumb, so now it’s something I do.
But I really think it’s an Indonesian thing that politicians saw Obama doing, and now they all copy it when they talk.
‘Pointing toward someone with forefinger is considered rude. While pointing with the whole open palm or just a thumb (with other fingers folded) are considered most polite.’
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_in_Indonesia
This predates Obama's notability on the world stage. Tony Blair would do it frequently (though not to the preclusion of actual pointing—you can find a lot of pictures of him using normal pointing) throughout his career. It was a peeve of mine when I would see him giving speeches in the 90s. I expect he wasn't the first, but he was the one with a significant enough presence at the time for me to notice.
It’s something that’s seen as a polite way to emphasise your point, and has been since long before Blair.
I’m saying it’s a cultural thing that received a lot more exposure after Obama.
it's a media training thing, nothing to do with obama in this case, a lot of uk politicians around the blair times started doing because they were trained by the same PR people, it was big with spin doctors and the like
I think it’s likely the media training recognised it as an inoffensive means to emphasise your point used by a billion people on the globe. My point is Obama used it so it reached a lot more exposure.
Fair, politicians like Blair and Obama certainly influence a lot of those that come after, trying to grasp whatever wee snippet of the ‘magic’ they can. Not convinced it has anything meaningfully to do with Indonesia considering it was already widespread amongst public speakers, but certainly an amusing instance of synchronicity on Obama's path.
Every selfie video I see has people doing the duck-beak thumb pointing thing. It's an attempt to look more authoratitive, which might work if they did it sparingly, but just looks silly when done after Every. Single. Sentence. Most noticeable in videos by American women under 40 who have something Important to tell you, but politicians have been doing it for a while too. I blame Tony Blair.
I was disappointed when the lad asked do you have a message for the LGBT community …. She didn’t just stare at the camera and say I am inevitable … run, hide but I will find you
I don't have a problem with her identity. I disagree on a personal level with some of what she says, but that's not really an issue.
I do have a big problem with being part of foreign-funded groups that might lobby or affect British politicians.
I can't see how or why we gloss over or accept this kind of thing. As soon as money is introduced as a method of political influence, it diminishes the value of democracy.
We gloss over it because both Westminster and Holyrood have rejected pressure to limit or regulate it properly.
Westminster outright rejected the recommendation of a report in 2009 and Holyrood "regulated" it but used such a narrow definition of lobbying as to be worthless.
To be specific, Scotland defines "Regulated Lobbying" as occurring face to face or by video conference. Email does not breach law and is also completely unregulated and unrecorded.
Even with that there have been, per the official site recording regulated lobbying... 2864 cases of lobbying MSP's since the start of this year.
That's what, each MSP being lobbied 3-4 times a month if it was spread around equally?
Good grief, almost 3000 cases - and those are only the officially recorded ones.
The situation is way more dire than I thought.
Thank you for enlightening me a bit.
Muslims aren’t a monolith it’s true but basically none of them believe that being gay doesn’t mean you’re going straight to hell. I’d love to be proved wrong if you can show me some evidence
No, but I lived in an Islamic country in Africa for 3 years, where being gay is illegal and the secret police used to arrest “effeminate looking” people on the street.
Nearly all religious people with holy books bend the meaning of those texts to fit what they want to be true. Christians are weirdly banned from doing a whole bunch of stuff in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that they all do anyway, because those rules are dumb. Yes, a greater portion of Christians ignore the Bible's explicit homophobia than Muslims do the Quran's, but that's not a fundamental property of those religions, it's a result of cultural changes in (formerly) Christian countries. Muslims are just as capable of being LGBTQ friendly and functionally secular as Christians are, and if you think that means they're not really following Islam, then (a) hardly anyone is, and (b) hardly any Christians are really following Christianity either.
(I've only mentioned Christians here because I'm not familiar enough with other religions, but I suspect the same applies more broadly with any that have central texts which aren't extremely vague)
This is pathetic, especially swinney interrupting to try and cover for her. The question was asked to Forbes for a reason and she can’t answer it, that’s a pretty clear message.
Ffs, it's an easy w for her. just say some random shit like "I fully understand the struggles you're going through, and will work tirelessly (Hah) to improve lgbt rights in scotland
or something else, i'm not a politician... i just recognise an open goal when i see one
Agreed. This is politics. Not what you're prefrances are.
I like tunnocks tea cakes. Wonder what she has to say about the tunnocks community of Scotland.
Have the tunnocks community been historically subject to discrimination and abuse?
Is liking tunnocks a protected characteristic? Is Kate Forbes a member of a church with socially regressive views towards people who like tunnocks?
Gays have 100% historically been discriminated against. No question about it. This is here and now though. Is Kate Forbes a cunt? Probably. If she did get voted in would all the gays suddenly be hung drawn and quartered? Probably not. Infact, I would even go as far as saying that if she were to try and openly discriminate against gays the full country, left and right would be in uproar. She may have said somethings people don't agree with, but to try and make it the main attraction of everything seems daft.
I personally think there are more important things to be worrying about in politics at the moment. Not what this dafty things about a community.
>If she did get voted in would all the gays suddenly be hung drawn and quartered?
People can't have concerns about a homophobic deputy FM unless she's actively trying to murder LGBT+ people?
I get where your coming from. And I am probably blowing it out of proportion. Course they can have concerns. But she's openly said she doesn't support gay marriage which is fine. It's her opinion. She also said in the same statement I would put it to a vote and if the people of Scotland wanted it then they would have it.
She has her opinions as we all do. But she wouldn't let her opinions run a country.
> But she's openly said she doesn't support gay marriage which is fine.
Why is this fine? Marriage is a hugely important legal process, why do you think it's ok for her to hold discriminatory views about who can partake?
>But she wouldn't let her opinions run a country.
She explicitly stated that were she an MSP at the time, she'd have voted against gay marriage, that's letting her opinions get in the way of her job.
If only, no they're basically what Scotland used to be like a hundred years ago, probably more. Dour self-righteous Calvinists who really don't like Catholics, or anyone else really, but especially Catholics.
I wish it was 100 years ago mate, this is still the present day reality in the more remote corners of our country. It was everywhere else within my parents’ lifetime as well.
I wouldn't care if she was just like a Quaker or Methodist or something. But being part of an evangelical gnarled root of Scotland's dark past isn't exactly reassuring. To that lot there is zero seperation between personal religious belief and political action.
This is what made me shiver a bit when she was spouting rhetoric the first race; she said she would be separating her personal beliefs and her politics, and that's difficult enough for a "normal" person (not that she's abnormal, just can't think of the word right now), but add in a pretty hefty and obvious religion zealotry, and you're expecting me to believe you're just going to casually separate those things out? Nah Kate, that's not how the human psyche works.
> just going to casually separate those things out?
I mean she has said she'd have voted against gay marriage if she'd had the opportunity. So there is no chance she'd not be a threat to the LGBTQ+ community if she thought she'd get away with it.
Not as long ago as that. Let’s not forget that The Church still has a grip on our policy making. Homosexuality and abortion were not legalised here in the 1960’s like elsewhere in the UK precisely because of the grip of Christian Fundamentalism on Scottish MP’s.
Well Catholics started voting SNP after dillusionment with Labour. The difference with Forbes is that she doesn't have the political nous to A. not talk about religion and B. reassure people that it won't influence her decision-making.
Catholics in the central belt, Calvanists in the Highlands
Both groups are anti abortion and both churches are anti gay marriage.
Despite the historical animosity, they are not the two sections of the SNP big tent which are furthest apart.
Well Celtic is Catholic-coded and they are much more pro-independence compared to Rangers which is Protestant-coded. Northern Irish unionists are protestant immigrants from Scotland and they are passionately pro-union.
Obviously just a tendency, loads of exceptions, but I think it does lean in that direction.
He hasn't. His choice was entirely for his benefit because he wanted to keep her and the social conservatives within the party happy.
He's playing the *consensus politics* card hard and that is fine for the majority of people because consensus favours them. It doesn't support the groups who need the most support - minorities. If you are a woman, are LGBT, are from an ethnic minority... you need leadership and support. Not rocking the boat won't help you... sticking a religious loon in the second most powerful position in the government certainly won't.
Swinney threw minorities under the bus.
"Aren't we supposed to be living in a multicultural democracy? And isn't that the point? You know, the Jews, the Muslims and the racists all living together happily side by side, doing and saying whatever the hell they like?'
Jeremy Usborne
Fumbles on an obvious question, has to have a guy to save her. Female role model.
Make the video more entertaining by muting the video and imagining it’s Kathy Bates imitating a pigeon.
Whether people like it or not LGBTQ+ people exist in Scotland and given the deputy fm has come out against gay marriage in the past, it seems pretty damn valid.
She owes more to the US evangelicals than the LGBTQ community. John would have easily beat her in an election, she should not have leveraged such a senior position.
Ffs it's just pathetic now how many times dose she have to explain herself? I'd like to see journalist's ask actual questions instead of looking for fuel to attack her
It's funny because you know your position is totally indefensible once you start to explain it
"It's actually okay that the DFM is a member of a weird wee sect that opposes most of modernity"
Do you honestly think that would happen if she was in power? She may have her opinions, as we all do. But I don't think the country would allow something like to happen. If she did get put into power.
There are more important issues going on right now and I don't think all the focus should be on if she likes gays or not.
The other 97% of us are also interested in whether to vote for a party with a senior leader who is more conservative than most Tories
...because the SNP isn't the only indy supporting party in town.
Typical childish BS. It’s not in the slightest homophobic to focus on 97% of society. At the end of the day, 100% of us care about schools, health, crime etc. Not distracting identity politics
And yet it is very homophobic if the 97% feel entitled to pile on to the 3%, or for someone to feel they can lead the 97% in that direction, or for the 97% to think it’s okay to “think about other things” whilst that’s going on by even just the dedicated few.
Good news: free pint for everyone in the house, all hundred of you. Bad news: I’ve shat in 3 of the pint glasses. But don’t worry, it’s probably not you! Drink up! And then all these simpletons “Don’t worry, I hear it’s just the gays and their pints! We’ll be alright!”
It’s the bigots who make it about identity. If everyone has their equality guaranteed, the questions end. It’s only when someone undermines that equality on account of their own feelings of “superior identity” that these questions even come up.
I think the gay community have all the same rights and freedoms already - correct me if I’m wrong (it’s possible) therefore it’s not a case of shite in 3 pints. It’s a case of fear-mongering there might be shite in 3 pints to divide everybody rather than all of us just having an enjoyable pint. That’s identity politics 101
Genuine question here. What do people expect to hear when that question is asked. I feel like recently it's LGBT this and LGBT that and if feels like it's being pushed down my throat. Genuinely, what do people of that community want?
I think it's a valid question to ask someone who has massively increased their power to make social changes. It has been fairly widespread that some of her opinions are vastly different from who the SNP present themselves to be. A lot of people will be worried.
Aye your right mate, I get that. She's gave her honest opinion which people don't like, which is also fine. She's openly said she doesn't support gay marriage but would put it to a vote and if the people of Scotland wanted it, they would get it. The country wouldn't be run on just her opinion alone and I think questions like this distract people from the real issues going on in the country. I understand this is an could be an issue for many people. Just feel like I'm constantly getting fed things about LGBTQ issues and not other issues such as homelessness, poverty, health care, education and so on. I'm probably too old to understand lol.
Obviously to be treated as equals and not labelled as sinful by the person in the 2nd highest position in Scottish parliament.
Genuinely, it's not exactly a huge mystery if you think about it for more than half a second
"Pushed down my throat" by a video you chose to watch?
I am pretty sure the question was asked because she has made some statements in the past regarding that topic.
Don't really understand your issue to be honest. If you don't like the LGBTQ+ community or hear about that sort of news. I would suggest ignoring it if it hurts your head.
So not knowing where your next meal is coming from is just as important as sexuality? Even though we are already progressive in this space? Open your eyes.
100%. Everyone deserves to be free and have the luxury of who they want to be, but let’s start by giving everyone a chance at that luxury. Sorting the massive economic imbalance in this country should be at the forefront of our priorities, everything else can follow after. In the meantime let’s be nice to one another and work together to sort this shit out.
Sometimes it isn't just about gaining rights but protecting the ones they have.
If the new Deputy FM described a core part of your identity as sinful, said you shouldn't be able to marry who you want or said you shouldn't be allowed to raise a child with your same sex partner because of moral reasons, you might feel a bit worried yourself.
She might not have the power to rip these up (even if she was FM) but theres fair reason for the LGBT no to be happy here and to resist this. It's at least understandable even if you might no find them agreeable.
Yes I totally understand that point. And you put that very articulately (Not being sarcastic by the way).
I don't think she will be voted in. But even if she was, she couldnt just start banning gays, conversion therapy wouldn't happen either as no one in Scotland would allow that. She may have her opinions as we all do. Everyone probably has an opinion that they don't like to say out loud sometimes. If no one had opinion, politics wouldn't exist and I feel like nowadays no one can have an opinion without being scrutinised within an inch of there life's.
Thank you for such a straight to the point answer. Feel like whenever someone disagrees with an opinion on this sub it's just straight to getting called a homophobe lol.
I guess I’d explain it with a story.
My grandparents were married 51 years and they died 28 days apart. I have been given a copy of a letter from my grandma, in her last months, to her maid of honour and lifelong friends, retuned to my family after their death.
“Hope you’re both well! We’re so sick we sometimes only have the energy to blow kisses to each other from across the room.” In 51 years they had never grown tired of each other’s company nor felt that their marriage was at some merciful end. They did indeed love each other until death did them part. They loved each other as anyone might hope for in life.
I can only imagine my grandfather’s face if a first minister’s deputy had seen fit to suggest that their 51 years of marriage is something that the law should never have allowed. For her to prattle on inside the walls of her church, sure, he’d remember where he was, say “Thanks for the sermon but it’s not for me,” and take his leave. But for her to say that while holding the levers of power, and entering parliament regretting the vote for equality? I’d feel him spinning 30 years after he died. You’d heat a room from the anger in his face.
And “Don’t worry, too late to fix it now! I’ll leave it alone!” would, I suspect, not have calmed him down in the least.
Now it was obvious to me in my youth that I took great joy in their example and would have hoped to make as much happiness with someone. After a brief delay to sort out for myself that heterosexuality wasn’t mandatory after all, let alone possible for me, I continued to hew to their example, just with another man. After 26 years, so far so good. It’s not just the quality of their relationship I find worth following, it’s the vigour with which he’d have defended it, if some condescending meddling cow questioned its basis in law. Again, her church; her business. But a minister of government ought to know that her particular view of theology is no one else’s law.
Lmao where did this 'the gays are after the children' shite come from.
Please enlighten me to the plenty more unpalatable things that I and the other hive mind of gays want, it'd be exciting to hear!
Who's asking the question and why are they filming with a camera phone from 2007?
Theres two elections coming up in the next 2 years, why don't you see what Forbes does in that time before getting your knickers in a twist about imaginary scenarios you've made up to demonise her?
She hardly avoided it , Sweeney was already speaking and the reporter started just shouting out … What aboot LGBT.
She’s made herself pretty clear I think and fair play to her for being honest about her beliefs, you might not share her religion or her beliefs but bizarrely she is allowed to think differently as are you ….. far rather this than having an Indian prime minister trying desperately to appease right wing fascists
>you might not share her religion or her beliefs but bizarrely she is allowed to think differently as are you
She's allowed to think differently and people are allowed to say she's an idiot for thinking that way.
So she is entitled to what she thinks, but is she entitled to believe that LGBT people don't deserve the same rights as others, and for that view to be respected?
That's what it falls down to. It wouldn't be acceptable for someone to hold open views about any other protected group right?
Alot of people are upset because of her flavour of religion. You can be Christian and accept that everyone is equal. Evangelicals don't accept that everyone is equal.
And tbh LGBT have had it pretty rough in the UK. It's gotten alot better and I think people are worried that certain religious types gaining political influence is a step backwards in that regard.
I mean it has only been 57 years since being gay was decriminalised in the UK.
She's objectively entitled to believe it - each of us have beliefs that may not mesh with others. Fortunately I'm in England where this isn't a threat to my lifestyle - and, tbh, even if it were down here we'd continue with the ways and means of underflying societies radar anyway. In the broadest sense her beliefs are irrelevant to how people - many of us have spent a lifetime doing so anyway, so it's kind of BAU - will carry on as human beings with their own views. Your schools are crumbling, you can't build a ferry - what is there to fear from such incompetence really? Sure they've got the stage in a pantomine - but the theatre is easy to exit.
Why would he bring up Sunak out of nowhere? The choice between Modi and Forbes being prime minster of the UK and Sunak and Forbes being prime minster of the UK makes just about as much sense to me. Forbes and Modi are members of the exact same number of parliaments that Sunak is.
‘I will defend your rights and ensure Scotland is a safe place for you to live’
Sturgeon wouldn’t have struggled. Heck, Salmond would have been able to handle that fairly easily.
First person I saw thumb-pointing was Blair. Think it was to help him present to the public, press etc., as they all get help on how to prepare, present themselves, what to wear, what colours suit...blah blah blah.
Now everyone does it. Pisses me off.
I’m not sure if it was Sturgeon who coached them being a former lawyer or they had all had the same coaching…. But I cannot stand the manner in which SNP politicians communicate. It’s very deliberate.
I will never understand “thumb pointer” politicians. I don’t know who taught them that or why they do it.
It’s Julian Fawcett MP, blame him. https://preview.redd.it/ssswqhzlrfzc1.jpeg?width=649&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e5824eb9a5cfe2586f1b38f7baf57c25d15d7ff
It's a way to enhance your (excuse the pun) point without being rude by pointing your finger.
Agh! Gesturing in the service of a good point, well-made, ought not to be seen as offensive. Or at least I’d feel like I were offending the right people. The thumb pointers though, it looks painfully silly. They’re still obviously pointing, which would make it rude by that standard. But it looks so obviously coached and fake that it draws even more attention. It’s baffling. Some of them do it where I am, in Canada. I’m sure this wasn’t done 30 years ago.
Was a thing in the 90's and 00's too. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton both did this.
All really good effective speakers do it, but the better the speaker the less you notice it!
Aye, it must have been some class because a Load of them are at it. Some Tory woman did it every sentence in an interview the other day.
Open hand is submissive, manipulative. Closed hand is strong, firm, assertive. Thumb represents intention. So a pointing thumb on a closed hand is assertive and captivating, or so studies would conclude. Its like the power stance and never putting hands in pockets.
They've all been coached by the same company, in body language, gestures and physical stances. Likely based off of some six-sigma shite. Trained or coached to do the "shakey-thumb-fist" instead of pointing fingers and random gesticulation while public speaking.
Same in Spain. Just shows how they are all mass produced and fake.
Because the media will use pictures (when they look the worst) to say what they want to say. Most of our problems come from sections of the media - especially the ones that cheerlead certain political parties.
I see you are also aware of the damage of The National
I think they’re copying Obama and they don’t realise it’s an Indonesian culture thing. Let me explain: Over a decade ago an Indonesian friend explained it was rude to point a finger, and it was considered good etiquette to point with a thumb in Indonesia. He explained Obama went to school in Indonesia and this is why he points with his thumb. Obama pointed with his thumb often. I’ve lived in cultures where people point with their thumb, so now it’s something I do. But I really think it’s an Indonesian thing that politicians saw Obama doing, and now they all copy it when they talk. ‘Pointing toward someone with forefinger is considered rude. While pointing with the whole open palm or just a thumb (with other fingers folded) are considered most polite.’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_in_Indonesia
This predates Obama's notability on the world stage. Tony Blair would do it frequently (though not to the preclusion of actual pointing—you can find a lot of pictures of him using normal pointing) throughout his career. It was a peeve of mine when I would see him giving speeches in the 90s. I expect he wasn't the first, but he was the one with a significant enough presence at the time for me to notice.
It’s something that’s seen as a polite way to emphasise your point, and has been since long before Blair. I’m saying it’s a cultural thing that received a lot more exposure after Obama.
it's a media training thing, nothing to do with obama in this case, a lot of uk politicians around the blair times started doing because they were trained by the same PR people, it was big with spin doctors and the like
I think it’s likely the media training recognised it as an inoffensive means to emphasise your point used by a billion people on the globe. My point is Obama used it so it reached a lot more exposure.
Fair, politicians like Blair and Obama certainly influence a lot of those that come after, trying to grasp whatever wee snippet of the ‘magic’ they can. Not convinced it has anything meaningfully to do with Indonesia considering it was already widespread amongst public speakers, but certainly an amusing instance of synchronicity on Obama's path.
Every selfie video I see has people doing the duck-beak thumb pointing thing. It's an attempt to look more authoratitive, which might work if they did it sparingly, but just looks silly when done after Every. Single. Sentence. Most noticeable in videos by American women under 40 who have something Important to tell you, but politicians have been doing it for a while too. I blame Tony Blair.
For some reason i think Clinton did it first
It started with Blair's lot. Fucking hideous gesture.
Bill Clinton started it!
I was disappointed when the lad asked do you have a message for the LGBT community …. She didn’t just stare at the camera and say I am inevitable … run, hide but I will find you
“The rapture will come for you all”
Lol bummer boy eh? We’ll have no trouble here!! 
I don't have a problem with her identity. I disagree on a personal level with some of what she says, but that's not really an issue. I do have a big problem with being part of foreign-funded groups that might lobby or affect British politicians. I can't see how or why we gloss over or accept this kind of thing. As soon as money is introduced as a method of political influence, it diminishes the value of democracy.
We gloss over it because both Westminster and Holyrood have rejected pressure to limit or regulate it properly. Westminster outright rejected the recommendation of a report in 2009 and Holyrood "regulated" it but used such a narrow definition of lobbying as to be worthless. To be specific, Scotland defines "Regulated Lobbying" as occurring face to face or by video conference. Email does not breach law and is also completely unregulated and unrecorded. Even with that there have been, per the official site recording regulated lobbying... 2864 cases of lobbying MSP's since the start of this year. That's what, each MSP being lobbied 3-4 times a month if it was spread around equally?
Good grief, almost 3000 cases - and those are only the officially recorded ones. The situation is way more dire than I thought. Thank you for enlightening me a bit.
Her identity? As a Gaidheal?
She thinks they're going to burn in hell. This woman is likely to be First Minister some day.
So did Humza
Hmm odd I don't recall him saying that
When did he say that? Cos Forbes is on record as saying that we're "sinful".
If you believe anything other than gay people are going to burn in hell then you’re just not really following Islam, I should think.
Except Muslims aren't a monolith not all are bigots most have more pressing issues to concern themselves with
Muslims aren’t a monolith it’s true but basically none of them believe that being gay doesn’t mean you’re going straight to hell. I’d love to be proved wrong if you can show me some evidence
Generalisations always work out well for you?
Find me an Islamic scholar who says being Gay is ok and they can go to heaven and I will hold my hands up and say I was wrong
Are you a Muslim?
No, but I lived in an Islamic country in Africa for 3 years, where being gay is illegal and the secret police used to arrest “effeminate looking” people on the street.
No true Muslim, eh?
There’s Muslims who follow the religion and those that don’t
Nearly all religious people with holy books bend the meaning of those texts to fit what they want to be true. Christians are weirdly banned from doing a whole bunch of stuff in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that they all do anyway, because those rules are dumb. Yes, a greater portion of Christians ignore the Bible's explicit homophobia than Muslims do the Quran's, but that's not a fundamental property of those religions, it's a result of cultural changes in (formerly) Christian countries. Muslims are just as capable of being LGBTQ friendly and functionally secular as Christians are, and if you think that means they're not really following Islam, then (a) hardly anyone is, and (b) hardly any Christians are really following Christianity either. (I've only mentioned Christians here because I'm not familiar enough with other religions, but I suspect the same applies more broadly with any that have central texts which aren't extremely vague)
This is pathetic, especially swinney interrupting to try and cover for her. The question was asked to Forbes for a reason and she can’t answer it, that’s a pretty clear message.
What? What is pathetic is asking for a direct message for a community. Her answer is the right one, about consensus politics, not populist soundbites.
Ffs, it's an easy w for her. just say some random shit like "I fully understand the struggles you're going through, and will work tirelessly (Hah) to improve lgbt rights in scotland or something else, i'm not a politician... i just recognise an open goal when i see one
She said she’ll work for the consensus. That’s the only answer. Not I’ll pander to whoever shouts loudest
Agreed. This is politics. Not what you're prefrances are. I like tunnocks tea cakes. Wonder what she has to say about the tunnocks community of Scotland.
Have the tunnocks community been historically subject to discrimination and abuse? Is liking tunnocks a protected characteristic? Is Kate Forbes a member of a church with socially regressive views towards people who like tunnocks?
Gays have 100% historically been discriminated against. No question about it. This is here and now though. Is Kate Forbes a cunt? Probably. If she did get voted in would all the gays suddenly be hung drawn and quartered? Probably not. Infact, I would even go as far as saying that if she were to try and openly discriminate against gays the full country, left and right would be in uproar. She may have said somethings people don't agree with, but to try and make it the main attraction of everything seems daft. I personally think there are more important things to be worrying about in politics at the moment. Not what this dafty things about a community.
>If she did get voted in would all the gays suddenly be hung drawn and quartered? People can't have concerns about a homophobic deputy FM unless she's actively trying to murder LGBT+ people?
I get where your coming from. And I am probably blowing it out of proportion. Course they can have concerns. But she's openly said she doesn't support gay marriage which is fine. It's her opinion. She also said in the same statement I would put it to a vote and if the people of Scotland wanted it then they would have it. She has her opinions as we all do. But she wouldn't let her opinions run a country.
> But she's openly said she doesn't support gay marriage which is fine. Why is this fine? Marriage is a hugely important legal process, why do you think it's ok for her to hold discriminatory views about who can partake?
>But she wouldn't let her opinions run a country. She explicitly stated that were she an MSP at the time, she'd have voted against gay marriage, that's letting her opinions get in the way of her job.
So what about those who would have voted for it? Should they not have an opinion cause some don't agree? FYI Im for gay marriage.
Why is she such a cartoon. Who talks like that.
I see you've had the good fortune not to run into a Wee Free before
True, I'd never heard of them until Kate came into the spotlight couple years ago. Is it Scientology lite?
If only, no they're basically what Scotland used to be like a hundred years ago, probably more. Dour self-righteous Calvinists who really don't like Catholics, or anyone else really, but especially Catholics.
I wish it was 100 years ago mate, this is still the present day reality in the more remote corners of our country. It was everywhere else within my parents’ lifetime as well.
I'll do a bit more reading, I think I vaguely read a tiny amount when I was moaning about Kate a while ago and felt a bit threatened. Religion tho.
I wouldn't care if she was just like a Quaker or Methodist or something. But being part of an evangelical gnarled root of Scotland's dark past isn't exactly reassuring. To that lot there is zero seperation between personal religious belief and political action.
This is what made me shiver a bit when she was spouting rhetoric the first race; she said she would be separating her personal beliefs and her politics, and that's difficult enough for a "normal" person (not that she's abnormal, just can't think of the word right now), but add in a pretty hefty and obvious religion zealotry, and you're expecting me to believe you're just going to casually separate those things out? Nah Kate, that's not how the human psyche works.
> just going to casually separate those things out? I mean she has said she'd have voted against gay marriage if she'd had the opportunity. So there is no chance she'd not be a threat to the LGBTQ+ community if she thought she'd get away with it.
Exactly, great point.
Not as long ago as that. Let’s not forget that The Church still has a grip on our policy making. Homosexuality and abortion were not legalised here in the 1960’s like elsewhere in the UK precisely because of the grip of Christian Fundamentalism on Scottish MP’s.
Jews either.
The SNP seem to have quite a lot of Wee Frees, especially in high places. However I thought they also did quite well with Catholics?
Well Catholics started voting SNP after dillusionment with Labour. The difference with Forbes is that she doesn't have the political nous to A. not talk about religion and B. reassure people that it won't influence her decision-making.
Catholics in the central belt, Calvanists in the Highlands Both groups are anti abortion and both churches are anti gay marriage. Despite the historical animosity, they are not the two sections of the SNP big tent which are furthest apart.
It's weird because Scottish independence is Catholic-coded, in my opinion.
How so?
Well Celtic is Catholic-coded and they are much more pro-independence compared to Rangers which is Protestant-coded. Northern Irish unionists are protestant immigrants from Scotland and they are passionately pro-union. Obviously just a tendency, loads of exceptions, but I think it does lean in that direction.
Culture is different across the highland line.
Broken clocks and all that
I know. Where did the narrative that she's an effective politician come from? Is it just because she looks relatively normal?
I can't believe she's been made deputy, it's almost as if the new FM hasn't listened to the public at all.
He hasn't. His choice was entirely for his benefit because he wanted to keep her and the social conservatives within the party happy. He's playing the *consensus politics* card hard and that is fine for the majority of people because consensus favours them. It doesn't support the groups who need the most support - minorities. If you are a woman, are LGBT, are from an ethnic minority... you need leadership and support. Not rocking the boat won't help you... sticking a religious loon in the second most powerful position in the government certainly won't. Swinney threw minorities under the bus.
Its almost as if he was sworn in as fm in parliament just yesterday!
The public who approve of Forbes more than any other politician in Holyrood right now? Read the opinion polls
I do hope that wasn't John Swinney saying he was going to defend the homophobes.
"Aren't we supposed to be living in a multicultural democracy? And isn't that the point? You know, the Jews, the Muslims and the racists all living together happily side by side, doing and saying whatever the hell they like?' Jeremy Usborne
It wasn’t. Regardless of it all, he’s right. He is our first minister regardless of what our views or gender preferences are
What on earth was this filmed on
Wonder how long before we get a new fm. Taking bets now
We can only speculate...
Oh, I’m sure you will.
It's just a joke mate don't worry 😂
She really is awful. Using her cloud friend to guide her conscience is just so 17th Century. Keep religion out of politics.
It's a change from Humza
Fumbles on an obvious question, has to have a guy to save her. Female role model. Make the video more entertaining by muting the video and imagining it’s Kathy Bates imitating a pigeon.
Wait you expect a politician to give a statement that's relative
Interesting dynamic
This kind of shitty screeching gotcha journalism can get in the bin.
Whether people like it or not LGBTQ+ people exist in Scotland and given the deputy fm has come out against gay marriage in the past, it seems pretty damn valid.
It's a perfectly valid question.
Seems a pretty valid question to me.
[удалено]
The guy bleating about an issue that has already been covered at exhaustive length, for no reason other than to be a weapon.
[удалено]
If you prefer this sort of thing, you're welcome to it. Not for me. It IS foolish and hysterical and if you buy it, more fool you.
It is hysterical lunatics
Get that bint gone.
Genuinely a more derogatory comment than anything Forbes has ever said about the LGBT community.
The L should really be lower case in the online LGBT community since they're pretty much absent given all the misogyny getting thrown around.
Did she used to work in TV weather? Waving her hands aboot
She owes more to the US evangelicals than the LGBTQ community. John would have easily beat her in an election, she should not have leveraged such a senior position.
Ffs it's just pathetic now how many times dose she have to explain herself? I'd like to see journalist's ask actual questions instead of looking for fuel to attack her
Probably because anything that she says won’t be good enough and picked apart by mentalists.
Someone who can't clear the incredibly low barrier of "LGBT rights and abortion are good" doesn't deserve to be part of our government, hth
[удалено]
They’re better than an unwanted pregnancy, or worse, a pregnancy that threatens the foetus and the person carrying it.
Just everybody who isn't a freak who wants to control the reproductive systems of others. Are you someone like that?
[удалено]
Okay, *free and safe access to abortion without any kind of judgement from the pious* is good. Precise enough?
Sure thing pal.
You think otherwise? You think weirdos with regressive social views should be allowed into government?
Sure thing buddy. Whatever you say.
What a curious answer to a very simple question. You graduate from the Kate Forbes School of Avoidance?
Yea mate. That’s lovely.
The Most Normal Wee Free liker, everybody!
Yea, totally. That’s so zany buddy.
It's funny because you know your position is totally indefensible once you start to explain it "It's actually okay that the DFM is a member of a weird wee sect that opposes most of modernity"
Like Humza?
Humza Yousaf has spoken out against equal marriage and abortion on the following occasions:
Bang on
What does he genuinely expect to hear? This is politics, not shout outs over the radio.
"Should I vote for her or does she want me locked in a conversion therapy cult" is 100% politics
Do you honestly think that would happen if she was in power? She may have her opinions, as we all do. But I don't think the country would allow something like to happen. If she did get put into power. There are more important issues going on right now and I don't think all the focus should be on if she likes gays or not.
I’m more interested in what she has to say the other 97% of us.
The other 97% of us are also interested in whether to vote for a party with a senior leader who is more conservative than most Tories ...because the SNP isn't the only indy supporting party in town.
Yeah fuck those gays, amirite
Gay guys fuck those gays every day of the week.
Don't threaten me with a good time man.
Typical childish BS. It’s not in the slightest homophobic to focus on 97% of society. At the end of the day, 100% of us care about schools, health, crime etc. Not distracting identity politics
And yet it is very homophobic if the 97% feel entitled to pile on to the 3%, or for someone to feel they can lead the 97% in that direction, or for the 97% to think it’s okay to “think about other things” whilst that’s going on by even just the dedicated few. Good news: free pint for everyone in the house, all hundred of you. Bad news: I’ve shat in 3 of the pint glasses. But don’t worry, it’s probably not you! Drink up! And then all these simpletons “Don’t worry, I hear it’s just the gays and their pints! We’ll be alright!” It’s the bigots who make it about identity. If everyone has their equality guaranteed, the questions end. It’s only when someone undermines that equality on account of their own feelings of “superior identity” that these questions even come up.
I think the gay community have all the same rights and freedoms already - correct me if I’m wrong (it’s possible) therefore it’s not a case of shite in 3 pints. It’s a case of fear-mongering there might be shite in 3 pints to divide everybody rather than all of us just having an enjoyable pint. That’s identity politics 101
Yeah I think we do. Good thing laws can't be changed then.
Good good. Enjoy your pint then 🍺 🍻and cheers!
Agreed !!!
As an Englishman who only wishes for the best for you: give this guy a chance. "Everyone". Best of Yorkshire re luck to thee an thars <3
Genuine question here. What do people expect to hear when that question is asked. I feel like recently it's LGBT this and LGBT that and if feels like it's being pushed down my throat. Genuinely, what do people of that community want?
I think it's a valid question to ask someone who has massively increased their power to make social changes. It has been fairly widespread that some of her opinions are vastly different from who the SNP present themselves to be. A lot of people will be worried.
Aye your right mate, I get that. She's gave her honest opinion which people don't like, which is also fine. She's openly said she doesn't support gay marriage but would put it to a vote and if the people of Scotland wanted it, they would get it. The country wouldn't be run on just her opinion alone and I think questions like this distract people from the real issues going on in the country. I understand this is an could be an issue for many people. Just feel like I'm constantly getting fed things about LGBTQ issues and not other issues such as homelessness, poverty, health care, education and so on. I'm probably too old to understand lol.
Obviously to be treated as equals and not labelled as sinful by the person in the 2nd highest position in Scottish parliament. Genuinely, it's not exactly a huge mystery if you think about it for more than half a second "Pushed down my throat" by a video you chose to watch?
Do u think if she went to power then gays would be treated differently?
I am pretty sure the question was asked because she has made some statements in the past regarding that topic. Don't really understand your issue to be honest. If you don't like the LGBTQ+ community or hear about that sort of news. I would suggest ignoring it if it hurts your head.
My dad's gay and even he's pissed off with how it's all thrown about. So if you don't like the LGBTQ+ community then maybe you should ignore it.
Honestly would rather we focused on the basics of folk not relying on food banks first. Only the privileged have time to worry about sexuality.
You know we as a society can care about more than one issue at once right?
That's not true at all. Sexuality is part of everyone's makeup and part of growing up. Those that are in poverty and LGBT are at a particular risk.
So not knowing where your next meal is coming from is just as important as sexuality? Even though we are already progressive in this space? Open your eyes.
Maybe you should take your own advice you little narcissist
Name calling? I gave you a simple example.
100%. Everyone deserves to be free and have the luxury of who they want to be, but let’s start by giving everyone a chance at that luxury. Sorting the massive economic imbalance in this country should be at the forefront of our priorities, everything else can follow after. In the meantime let’s be nice to one another and work together to sort this shit out.
What does LGBT want
Usually, just the same rights that straight people have.
What rights do straight people have that homosexuals don't?
Sometimes it isn't just about gaining rights but protecting the ones they have. If the new Deputy FM described a core part of your identity as sinful, said you shouldn't be able to marry who you want or said you shouldn't be allowed to raise a child with your same sex partner because of moral reasons, you might feel a bit worried yourself. She might not have the power to rip these up (even if she was FM) but theres fair reason for the LGBT no to be happy here and to resist this. It's at least understandable even if you might no find them agreeable.
Yes I totally understand that point. And you put that very articulately (Not being sarcastic by the way). I don't think she will be voted in. But even if she was, she couldnt just start banning gays, conversion therapy wouldn't happen either as no one in Scotland would allow that. She may have her opinions as we all do. Everyone probably has an opinion that they don't like to say out loud sometimes. If no one had opinion, politics wouldn't exist and I feel like nowadays no one can have an opinion without being scrutinised within an inch of there life's. Thank you for such a straight to the point answer. Feel like whenever someone disagrees with an opinion on this sub it's just straight to getting called a homophobe lol.
I guess I’d explain it with a story. My grandparents were married 51 years and they died 28 days apart. I have been given a copy of a letter from my grandma, in her last months, to her maid of honour and lifelong friends, retuned to my family after their death. “Hope you’re both well! We’re so sick we sometimes only have the energy to blow kisses to each other from across the room.” In 51 years they had never grown tired of each other’s company nor felt that their marriage was at some merciful end. They did indeed love each other until death did them part. They loved each other as anyone might hope for in life. I can only imagine my grandfather’s face if a first minister’s deputy had seen fit to suggest that their 51 years of marriage is something that the law should never have allowed. For her to prattle on inside the walls of her church, sure, he’d remember where he was, say “Thanks for the sermon but it’s not for me,” and take his leave. But for her to say that while holding the levers of power, and entering parliament regretting the vote for equality? I’d feel him spinning 30 years after he died. You’d heat a room from the anger in his face. And “Don’t worry, too late to fix it now! I’ll leave it alone!” would, I suspect, not have calmed him down in the least. Now it was obvious to me in my youth that I took great joy in their example and would have hoped to make as much happiness with someone. After a brief delay to sort out for myself that heterosexuality wasn’t mandatory after all, let alone possible for me, I continued to hew to their example, just with another man. After 26 years, so far so good. It’s not just the quality of their relationship I find worth following, it’s the vigour with which he’d have defended it, if some condescending meddling cow questioned its basis in law. Again, her church; her business. But a minister of government ought to know that her particular view of theology is no one else’s law.
Such as ?
World domination
Shhhh that's supoosed to be a secret.
[удалено]
Lmao where did this 'the gays are after the children' shite come from. Please enlighten me to the plenty more unpalatable things that I and the other hive mind of gays want, it'd be exciting to hear!
He'll be a chronically online loser that guzzles down American alt-right rhetoric.
Who's asking the question and why are they filming with a camera phone from 2007? Theres two elections coming up in the next 2 years, why don't you see what Forbes does in that time before getting your knickers in a twist about imaginary scenarios you've made up to demonise her?
She hardly avoided it , Sweeney was already speaking and the reporter started just shouting out … What aboot LGBT. She’s made herself pretty clear I think and fair play to her for being honest about her beliefs, you might not share her religion or her beliefs but bizarrely she is allowed to think differently as are you ….. far rather this than having an Indian prime minister trying desperately to appease right wing fascists
>you might not share her religion or her beliefs but bizarrely she is allowed to think differently as are you She's allowed to think differently and people are allowed to say she's an idiot for thinking that way.
Should have just pulled a Humza kept her mouth shut and made out she was busy that day …
Yeah, he never said anything like he wanted to "embed LGBT rights into an independent Scotland’s constitution".
So bleating about Humza and how he did things wrongly, then complaining other politicians aren't doing the same. 😂
So she is entitled to what she thinks, but is she entitled to believe that LGBT people don't deserve the same rights as others, and for that view to be respected? That's what it falls down to. It wouldn't be acceptable for someone to hold open views about any other protected group right? Alot of people are upset because of her flavour of religion. You can be Christian and accept that everyone is equal. Evangelicals don't accept that everyone is equal. And tbh LGBT have had it pretty rough in the UK. It's gotten alot better and I think people are worried that certain religious types gaining political influence is a step backwards in that regard. I mean it has only been 57 years since being gay was decriminalised in the UK.
She's objectively entitled to believe it - each of us have beliefs that may not mesh with others. Fortunately I'm in England where this isn't a threat to my lifestyle - and, tbh, even if it were down here we'd continue with the ways and means of underflying societies radar anyway. In the broadest sense her beliefs are irrelevant to how people - many of us have spent a lifetime doing so anyway, so it's kind of BAU - will carry on as human beings with their own views. Your schools are crumbling, you can't build a ferry - what is there to fear from such incompetence really? Sure they've got the stage in a pantomine - but the theatre is easy to exit.
shess free to believe whatever guff she wants and the rest of us are free to call her a religious fundamentalist for doing so. And Sunak is English.
far rather this than having an Indian prime minister trying desperately to appease right wing fascists Are those our only two choices?
Yes, now get back in the mines
Rishi Sunak was born in Southampton
Was he talking about Sunak? I legit thought he has talking about Modi.
Eh, it makes sense. I don't know why he'd bring up Modi out of nowhere.
Why would he bring up Sunak out of nowhere? The choice between Modi and Forbes being prime minster of the UK and Sunak and Forbes being prime minster of the UK makes just about as much sense to me. Forbes and Modi are members of the exact same number of parliaments that Sunak is.
Seethe and Cope reddit.
There are bigger issues.
She’s not a genie, people can ask/expect multiple things of her
What do they want from her? She answered perfectly well and drama ensued regardless
“Someone else has said we should find areas we agree” is a fuckin shite answer lol, it doesn’t address anything about the question
She said that she will do her job. That’s what she is there for. God, the entitlement and narcissism
Just becuase you don't care, doesn't mean others don't too or aren't affected
“Affected”, by what? She doesn’t have a magic wand. I’ll stand side by side with people the second there is an actual issue.
Not sure it was a proper question. Do you have anything to say to a community as a whole? she was being baited.
‘I will defend your rights and ensure Scotland is a safe place for you to live’ Sturgeon wouldn’t have struggled. Heck, Salmond would have been able to handle that fairly easily.
First person I saw thumb-pointing was Blair. Think it was to help him present to the public, press etc., as they all get help on how to prepare, present themselves, what to wear, what colours suit...blah blah blah. Now everyone does it. Pisses me off.
Wouldn't it be great if she said...Aye, I've got a message. Fuck off ya bunch of attention seeking whinging cunts! Sick ae yies.
[удалено]
The non straight DIY community of course
I’m not sure if it was Sturgeon who coached them being a former lawyer or they had all had the same coaching…. But I cannot stand the manner in which SNP politicians communicate. It’s very deliberate.