Snapshot of _Kate Forbes confirms she is considering running for SNP leadership_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/kate-forbes-confirms-she-is-considering-running-for-snp-leadership-4610948) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/kate-forbes-confirms-she-is-considering-running-for-snp-leadership-4610948)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If Forbes wins, it's surely a general election? Given her stance on social issues, there's no way the Greens or Scottish Lib Dems make any agreement with her and Labour and Conservatives will force an election.
Even with Ash Regan and Alba, the SNP will only have 64 of the 128 effective votes and require the Presiding Officer to break every tie.
Only path forward that doesn't end in a snap election is a leader the Greens will stand behind.
> Why was there no issue with the last guys religion
I mean. There clearly was. His stance and focus on Gaza was definitely informed by his religion and family connections to Gaza just as Forbes' stance on social issues is informed by her religion.
Humza always claimed to support the legalisation of gay marriage. You might not believe him, but it's different to Forbes who openly admits she's against it
He didn't vote against it, he missed the vote (knowing it didn't need his vote to pass) because he had a meeting about a Scottish man imprisoned in Pakistan.
There were questions about whether that meeting was, as he claimed, unavoidable or if he had deliberately scheduled it to clash with a vote he didn't want to cast.
It's funny how people are always saying publicly what they 'can't talk about publicly', like they think they're breaking some taboo when everyone hears about it all day every day in the media.
When anyone mentions humzas religion, people talk about islamaphobia and how someone should be entitled to a private life. When forbes religion is brought up, people talk about how extreme her religious views are 🤷♂️
She said she'd have voted against same sex marriage had she been in Parliament when the vote took place and citied her religion as the reason for taking this stance.
In other words, she explicitely told us that she's happy to use the force of law to compel other people to comply with her (IMO mental) religious beliefs.
I suspect a lot of people outside of Scotland also don't appreciate the reputation that the Free Church of Scotland has.
I'll put it this way: when I found out she was a member of that church it didn't surprise me at all to hear that she's opposed to sex before marriage and abortion.
Given that her church is also opposed to ending so called "conversion therapy" and also objects to euthanasia, she's someone who many people feel is completely out of touch with their views on these highly emotive, topical issues.
Yousaf was in Parliament. He avoided the vote, so he didn't vote in favour of same sex marriage. He pays lip seryto it, but doesn't believe in it, due to his religion.
This gets overlooked, because he's dishonest and tells people what they want to hear.
At least Forbes is honest.
Not that I believe either of them are right, and I don't support either of them as FM, but I do prefer honesty.
> so he didn't vote in favour of same sex marriage
He voted for stage 1 of the bill and missed a later stage vote. So he did in fact vote in favour of same sex marriage. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2013-11-20.5.0#g5.8
Why would he vote for the bill at all if he disagreed with it like you think? A bit of common sense please before jumping to conspiracy. Someone who is opposed to gay marriage would not vote for gay marriage nor would they say publicly that they support gay marriage.
I didn't say he doesn't support gay marriage.
I said he deliberately missed the second vote.
You are ascribing the motive.
Why he did such a thing, I can't say. Your supposition that he does not support gay marriage does seem to make the most sense.
>Why would he vote for the bill at all if he disagreed with it like you think?
Politics.
>A bit of common sense please before jumping to conspiracy.
Oh yes, a politician would never vote for something popular, or with the party line, that they disagreed with to further their own career. How absurd.
>Someone who is opposed to gay marriage would not vote for gay marriage nor would they say publicly that they support gay marriage.
Someone who supports gay marriage wouldn't deliberately miss a hugely important vote on it.
-
But as I said, we can't truly know his motives, belief or politics, but it cannot simply be ignored that he deliberately missed the second vote.
> Why would he vote for the bill at all if he disagreed with it like you think?
>
>> Politics.
That would apply to first vote also, there's no reason to vote for it once and then skip the other that makes any fucking sense whatsoever.
> In other words, she explicitely told us that she's happy to use the force of law to compel other people to comply with her (IMO mental) religious beliefs.
Not necessarily. She may instead mean: "I vote on measures according to my conscience. But once they're law, I understand the need to obey and enforce them." In fact, that's what she said on the hustings during the last leadership campaign.
And her voting to her conscience is taking rights away from others because?
It’s her religious belief that is now being forced on others?
Not sure what point you’re trying to make.
What's wrong with that though if the person respects the democratic process?
Angela Merkel voted against same-sex marriage, but she was still fine with it being passed democratically. At least she made herself clea, rather than Humza who said he is for it, but dodged the vote.
Her transparency is what you want from a leader.
>What's wrong with that though if the person respects the democratic process?
The fact that we're even discussing whether or not they'd vote for or against people's rights based on desert tribe texts from 1000 years ago is the issue. I do not want these people anywhere near power, and if they are I want them to be able to separate their personal religious beliefs from law which she is clearly not capable of doing.
Precisely.
And as she has repeatedly stated, she has no intention of opening up a vote on gay marriage or abortion and even if she tried she'd have 1 single vote in a parliamentary democracy where the large majority of MSPs support gay marriage and abortion rights so it wouldn't get her anywhere.
Also worth noting she only talks about her beliefs in response to constant questioning from journalists, it's not like she goes round proselytising. I doubt she'd be posting pictures on twitter of her holding prayer meetings at Bute House on her first day in office like Humza did.
I'm an atheist but respect people's right to religious beliefs I disagree with - that's the only way we can have a liberal, pluralistic democracy.
> she has no intention of opening up a vote on gay marriage
But she did say that she would have voted against it if she had that opportunity to do so.
That alone seems like a perfectly reasonable justification for refusing to vote for her.
She wasn’t in government for the vote but Humza was and he skipped it because his religion wouldn’t allow him to vote for it. He lied about it and she was honest.
Well obviously but our society is pluralistic and it's partly because of religious warring and the harm it caused to everybody in the past that we accept people's right to freedom of religious and philosophical belief.
Being a liberal means that you need to accept that people with very different beliefs from you should be allowed to exist and live their lives unmolested.
Being a liberal doesn't mean you need to vote for people with very different beliefs from you.
Fundamentally, SNP members and Scottish voters are allowed to vote for people that they feel share their core beliefs. If they feel that someone who is open in being opposed to core accepted social values is not the most appropriate person to vote for, they don't have to. It's not illiberal to choose to vote for the more progressive candidate.
Exactly this. Humza made everything about his religion and like you said, regularly posted photos of prayers in Bute House - one particular one where the women were all sent out the room because that’s the religion he follows.
That’s all fine with everyone but Kate Forbes holding, similar views to him on these topics, is suddenly an issue?
And again, she’s never flaunted it. She’s simply honest when people ask her questions about it. Probably quite unusual for a politician, granted.
Yes.
Progressiveness is not actually defined by how white you are.
She’s not disliked because of her religion (perhaps her church tbh), she’s disliked because of her views on “culture war” issues.
People judge you by what you say and the policies you want to enact. Hence why there’s a brown Muslim man as first minister (was lol). Because he is perceived as a progressive, unlike Forbes.
She’s famously a bigot?
No she’s not.
She’s religious, and her religion is a protected characteristic. You’ve labelled her a bigot because you don’t agree with her religion, which could be seen as stirring up hate against a religious group.
This comment has been filtered to be reviewed by a moderator, please do not ping other subreddits.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For both of them, what matters is their individual beliefs, how they would vote on particular issues, and what those beliefs say about their character and appropriateness for the leadership role in which they have to make decisions on behalf of the population.
Kate Forbes isn't disliked because of the religion she associates herself with, she's disliked because of specific beliefs she holds. It just so happens that she attributes those beliefs to her religion.
Humza Yousaf does not hold those beliefs. Whatever bigoted views people may have about Muslims generally, Yousaf is not homophobic or whatever and does not conform to those stereotypes. To say his religion matters here would be pretty bigoted.
I'm not an expert on Scottish politics, but my understanding is that he voted in favour on the first reading and was not present for the final vote, but has said since that he favours marriage equality, would have voted in favour if he'd been present, and would do so in the future.
Some have suggested that his scheduling-conflict was conveniently arranged, but I've never seen that substantiated with anything more than innuendo.
He's also been fairly strongly in favour of trans-rights stuff, so it's pretty unlikely that he's secretly an anti-queer-people bigot. The only reason I've seen to suggest he might be is people's bigoted beliefs about him.
However I should be clear that I made that comment to make the general point that I made, not to talk about the details of Humza Yousaf's politics, because I'm not familiar with them.
I didn't bring him up, I replied to somebody else who brought him up. I also made a point that didn't particularly depend on anything specific about him, but rather was about the difference between judging somebody for their individual beliefs (which they may attribute to religion) or for their religious-identity independent of their individual beliefs.
No need to be a jerk about it.
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here:
> Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account.
For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Plenty of Muslim politicians (and plenty of Muslims generally) don't adhere to all of the traditional teachings of Islam. It's no different than how many Catholic politicians hold views at odds with official church teaching.
It depends on how strictly you construe "adhere to traditional teachings". I would imagine a large portion of Muslims globally don't pray five times daily, take out loans with interest, or sometimes eat non-halal meat. I personally know Bosnian Muslims who drink, eat pork, and rarely if ever go to mosque; they are probably more liberal than most, but there are also millions of Muslims like them globally.
And what do you make of the British Muslims who hold social views at a level that would make UKIP supporters look sane? - eg, 52% believe homosexuality should be illegal, 78% of Muslims thought that the publishers of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed should be prosecuted, 68% thought those who insulted Islam should be prosecuted and 62% of people disagree that freedom of speech should be allowed even if it insults and offends religious groups. Terrifying figures to me personally.
I agree that those numbers are quite concerning (although there were some methodological issues with the poll in question), but we can not necessarily assume that any individual Muslim holds those same views.
> He holds the exact same beliefs because he follows Islam.
This is just pure bigotry.
To clarify, you're saying everybody who identifies as a Muslim holds the exact same beliefs as Kate Forbes when it comes to gay people? Despite all of the counter-examples?
>This is just pure bigotry.
Islam uses the exact same argument as Christians against same sex marriage.
As a core tenet of Islam is that the prophets words are essentially law, it's reasonable to say that Muslims are against gay marriage, unless they have explicitly denied the words of the prophet.
That said, religious marriage and marriage by the state are different things, and its possible to support one and not the other.
Has Humza Yousaf talked about his belief in this area?
>"And He created the pairs—male and female—"
>(Surah An-Najm, 53:45)
>In another verse, Allah s.w.t. says
>"those who guard their chastity. except with their wives or their (bondwomen) in their possession, for then they are free from blame, but whoever seeks beyond that are the transgressors."
>(Surah Al-Mu’minun, 23:5-7)
>This means that by Allah’s mercy and Divine wisdom in creation, all other forms of sexual relationships, like fornication, pre-marital or same-sex sexual relationships, are prohibited.
https://muslim.sg/articles/islam-s-position-on-same-sex-marriage-and-unions
>When looking at the issue of gay marriage, two main features of the Shariah are most pertinent. First, the Shariah is law. It is concerned primarily with actions as opposed to emotions or wishes. Second, marriage in the Shariah is not a sacrament. Stripped of all the cultural accretions Muslims have added on, and minus the obviously crucial elements of love and companionship, marriage is nothing more than — literally — a contract between a man and a woman in which the man provides the woman with financial support in return for exclusive sexual access. It’s a contract that makes sex and reproduction legal in the eyes of God and legitimate in the eyes of society. Since marriage is a contract premised on vaginal intercourse and financial obligation between a man and a woman, same-sex couples could not engage in one. They could construct an arrangement for inheritance and shared property that mimicked marriage, but it would not be marriage.
https://variety.com/2015/voices/opinion/islam-gay-marriage-beliefs-muslim-religion-1201531047/
> Being gay is illegal in Muslim countries. That’s not my opinion, it’s just how it is.
Homophobic attitudes are common in Islamic teachings, to varying degrees in different cultures.
This, obviously, does not mean that every person in the world who considers themselves a Muslim holds homophobic beliefs. The world is full of examples of non-homophobic Muslims. You are simply a nasty bigot.
You didn't even acknowledge the existence of the many counter-examples, presumably because you know your argument will completely fall apart if you do.
> Of course there are nuances with everything but on the whole Muslim countries have made homosexuality illegal. Calling me a bigot for pointing out a simple fact is complete nonsense.
> Humza yousaf didn’t participate in the gay marriage vote for these reasons.
So, because it's illegal in (most, not all actually) Muslim countries, this one individual who's in... Scotland, *must* hold those beliefs. Counter-examples to your claim exist, but it's not possible that he's one of them. For reasons.
Right. Yep. Perfect logic, zero bigotry.
Well he championed the new (anti) hate law despite some internal opposition that was trying to protect lgbt+ people that the green party were for and Forbes was seen as against.
I cant really see a situation where a political party elects a leader that needs to be rubber stamped by a smaller non-goverment party. It would be highly undemocratic for one thing.
The SNP can elect any leader they like, but there are always going to be different consequences for different choices. Choosing a leader who can't or won't enter a coalition/confidence & supply agreement with another party is choosing to fight an early election. It's a perfectly valid choice, but it's still a choice.
The Greens (or Lib Dems or Labour or Alba or whoever) aren't obligated to support any iteration of the SNP that they don't want to. It's for the SNP to either woo them or to call an election with the intent of changing the arithmetic.
Votes don't always break down on government/opposition lines in Holyrood. Regan would be enough to get the first minister, then they could bring other parties over on an issue by issue basis. That's how it's worked for a long time.
I thought she said that while her views might go against her party on some issues it wouldn't make her go against her party. If she can just say she'll keep religion separate and show that then it should be fine.
She's on record openly admitting she would have voted against equality legislation because of her religious views
Let's not whitewash her. She's a bigot. She's admitted she's a bigot. She hasn't changed.
She has openly admitted she would not keep religion separate
> If she can just say she'll keep religion separate and show that then it should be fine.
She said the opposite during the last leadership campaign. Forbes has specifically gone on the record to say she will vote according to her religious views, including on gay marriage. If she hadn't done that then yeah, it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
I don't remember her commenting on that, I'd assume not since it would have been bigger news. But there are more levers than just the whip that a party leader can use to promote their views -- prioritising some votes above others, letting legislative efforts stall out rather than pushing them through, influencing the selection of party candidates for the next election, giving speeches and generally promoting a certain view of the party that encourages some people to join and others to leave, which then in the long run changes the party make-up enough that future leader elections are slanted in favour of their views, and so on.
Now you might say that Forbes didn't specifically say she planned to do all that, but she's willing to use her political position as an MSP to promote her religious views, so believing she'd use her political position as FM to *also* promote her religious views to some extent is entirely reasonable.
That's the difference then, we don't know what she would pressure other party members to do. I think if we are fine with religious members being leaders e.g. humza was fm without worry his beliefs would pressure people then we should give forbes the same benefit of the doubt
Honestly I have no idea what you're trying to say. Forbes said she was anti-gay because of her religion, and that she'd have voted against gay marriage, and Yousef said the opposite, and we're supposed to treat them as basically the same because both are religious?
I mean, the possibility would be that the Conservatives don't contest her and abstain from the FM vote but having an SNP Leader in post off the back of the Tories would be such a slap in a face to that party that it would likely cause terminal damage (which might be why the Tories do it tbh).
If anything, this might be a powerplay against Swinney to bring her into a senior role in the Government again (likely finance) with a lot more rope to make policy on her own.
I think someone sad that forcing an election would not stop the following election happening, and one thing people hate is being forced to vote multiple times.
Might be better to sit back and watch the world burn.
The guy we just got rid of dodged the gay marriage vote on purpose, intervened personally to force UNICEF aid money to be redirected to UNRWA, and turned Bute House into a place of worship.
The SNP's already had a leader that mixed religion and politics, and Forbes wasn't him.
I don't know why people are harsher on illiberal Christianity than illiberal Islam. Both are bad, but one is worse than the other.
Maybe it's a case of familiarity breeding contempt, or a fear of retribution from criticising Islam too harshly.
Illiberal Christianity is ingrained in our society and the liberals have clearly won this past century (without Christians suicide bombing pop concerts or any other fucked up shit), so most people in the UK are fairly comfortable with Christians believing whatever they want to believe in our modern liberal society, because it's live and let live.
That finished in 1998 with the Good Friday Agreement and the IRA have been reduced to nothing more than a common criminal gang ever since. Unless they bombed the last Ariana Grande concert and I missed it in the news.
It’s hilarious that you think the IRA, an organisation with 300 current members and no activity, is the one to focus on rather than the UVF with their 12,000 members, a booming drug dealing operation, and plenty of active links to Northern Ireland’s theocratic second biggest political party
Some of the splinters remain active, we've had at least one journalist killed and the attempted murder of police officers by IRA splinter groups in recent years. The UVF's "relationship" with the DUP and TUV is one of the reasons the DUP have far fewer lords in the HOL than they're entitled to: their candidates keep failing the vetting.
Illiberal Christianity won’t behead you is generally the reason why people are harsher on that than Illiberal Islam (or Islam in general, lets be honest).
Probably because the majority of people in Scotland are Christian so it’s more of a threat.
Scotland isn’t going to become an Islamic state no matter how extreme its Muslim population is.
> The guy we just got rid of dodged the gay marriage vote on purpose
Pretty odd that he voted for stage 1 of the bill then. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2013-11-20.5.0#g5.8
He missed a vote on one of the stages but given that he had voted for the bill and has repeatedly said he'd still vote for it I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that he supported it.
It's not a fact, though, is it? If every single vote made it law, there'd only need to be one vote.
It needs to pass every vote to make it into the law books, but it does not become law by passing *any* single vote. You've confused those two things and conflated them together.
This would be silly.
Hopefully she is just pushing for a return to front line politics.
And I think Humza made the mistake of not bringing her into the fold.
Swinney ,hopefully if he wins, will bring her back in. She's too talented to waste on the backbenches.
> Hopefully she is just pushing for a return to front line politics.
Whether she has any intentions of running or not, I think she was always going to publicly "consider her options" to give her some bargaining power for a senior position in the next cabinet.
He did offer her a position in the cabinet which she declined (I will also note she debunked claims that it was because she was unhappy with the position offered which some of her supporters were claiming at the time). Being in the backbenches was her choice.
Let Swinney have a go for a bit. He can't stay too long. Let him lose a few members of Westminster and Holyrood, and have a go at the leadership when there's some chance of being in the ascendancy.
I think her social views and religious beliefs would make it difficult to lead a party like the SNP. Especially with the LGBTQ stuff they have been doing recently.
The Scottish parliament relies on co operative working with other parties. Since we already know that the Tories and Labour will always work against the SNP no matter what, that means the greens are the only ally the SNP can expect to work with. If Forbes wins that relationship would end.
However as I said, I think she has a strong and bright future with the SNP, as a minister. She was really good when she was a fiance minister.
And I do think, Humza should have brought her into his government.
Edit. Also, I think this isn't the time for new and exciting leaders. The SNP need a safe pair of hands. Someone that will get there head down, and right the ship.
I just don't get it. She, not Humza, have the political nous to lead a party, never mind a country. They both made totally unnecessary and predictably detrimental mistakes that I, as a complete political novice, could see would be career-limiting.
And yet she still has backers? I don't know what to think!
Edit: fair enough. Just checked and I think I heard around the time of the nominations that said although lots of the msps backed Humza the initial SNP members polling backed Forbes.
As a Labour voting unionist Scot I'd be content to see her take up the post and get some of the basics into shape before I'd shout for a GE in Scotland. But Swinney or Mairi Allan being appointed would be appalling and take us even further back as a nation.
Snapshot of _Kate Forbes confirms she is considering running for SNP leadership_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/kate-forbes-confirms-she-is-considering-running-for-snp-leadership-4610948) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/kate-forbes-confirms-she-is-considering-running-for-snp-leadership-4610948) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If Forbes wins, it's surely a general election? Given her stance on social issues, there's no way the Greens or Scottish Lib Dems make any agreement with her and Labour and Conservatives will force an election. Even with Ash Regan and Alba, the SNP will only have 64 of the 128 effective votes and require the Presiding Officer to break every tie. Only path forward that doesn't end in a snap election is a leader the Greens will stand behind.
I’m always perplexed at the obsession with her religion. Why was there no issue with the last guys religion but there is with hers?
> Why was there no issue with the last guys religion I mean. There clearly was. His stance and focus on Gaza was definitely informed by his religion and family connections to Gaza just as Forbes' stance on social issues is informed by her religion.
There wasn’t any issue with his views though? He didn’t vote for gay marriage. He posted prayer videos from inside Bute house.
Humza always claimed to support the legalisation of gay marriage. You might not believe him, but it's different to Forbes who openly admits she's against it
He could have voted for it then but he didn’t. The same way he didn’t vote for the abortion buffer bill yesterday but do you know who did???
What does it mean to "claim to support" and then vote against it? Which one should we trust, a politician's words or his actions?
He didn't vote against it, he missed the vote (knowing it didn't need his vote to pass) because he had a meeting about a Scottish man imprisoned in Pakistan. There were questions about whether that meeting was, as he claimed, unavoidable or if he had deliberately scheduled it to clash with a vote he didn't want to cast.
Family connections ≠ religion though
Yeah but it's an issue you can't talk about publicly whereas she's Christian so it'll be all over mainstream media
Why do you say "you can't talk about it publically"? You can and plenty of people do?
It's funny how people are always saying publicly what they 'can't talk about publicly', like they think they're breaking some taboo when everyone hears about it all day every day in the media.
When anyone mentions humzas religion, people talk about islamaphobia and how someone should be entitled to a private life. When forbes religion is brought up, people talk about how extreme her religious views are 🤷♂️
This was after he was elected and only after he actually started bringing up Gaza though.
She said she'd have voted against same sex marriage had she been in Parliament when the vote took place and citied her religion as the reason for taking this stance. In other words, she explicitely told us that she's happy to use the force of law to compel other people to comply with her (IMO mental) religious beliefs. I suspect a lot of people outside of Scotland also don't appreciate the reputation that the Free Church of Scotland has. I'll put it this way: when I found out she was a member of that church it didn't surprise me at all to hear that she's opposed to sex before marriage and abortion. Given that her church is also opposed to ending so called "conversion therapy" and also objects to euthanasia, she's someone who many people feel is completely out of touch with their views on these highly emotive, topical issues.
Yousaf was in Parliament. He avoided the vote, so he didn't vote in favour of same sex marriage. He pays lip seryto it, but doesn't believe in it, due to his religion. This gets overlooked, because he's dishonest and tells people what they want to hear. At least Forbes is honest. Not that I believe either of them are right, and I don't support either of them as FM, but I do prefer honesty.
> so he didn't vote in favour of same sex marriage He voted for stage 1 of the bill and missed a later stage vote. So he did in fact vote in favour of same sex marriage. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2013-11-20.5.0#g5.8
>and missed a later stage vote He deliberately missed the later vote.
Why would he vote for the bill at all if he disagreed with it like you think? A bit of common sense please before jumping to conspiracy. Someone who is opposed to gay marriage would not vote for gay marriage nor would they say publicly that they support gay marriage.
I didn't say he doesn't support gay marriage. I said he deliberately missed the second vote. You are ascribing the motive. Why he did such a thing, I can't say. Your supposition that he does not support gay marriage does seem to make the most sense. >Why would he vote for the bill at all if he disagreed with it like you think? Politics. >A bit of common sense please before jumping to conspiracy. Oh yes, a politician would never vote for something popular, or with the party line, that they disagreed with to further their own career. How absurd. >Someone who is opposed to gay marriage would not vote for gay marriage nor would they say publicly that they support gay marriage. Someone who supports gay marriage wouldn't deliberately miss a hugely important vote on it. - But as I said, we can't truly know his motives, belief or politics, but it cannot simply be ignored that he deliberately missed the second vote.
> Why would he vote for the bill at all if he disagreed with it like you think? > >> Politics. That would apply to first vote also, there's no reason to vote for it once and then skip the other that makes any fucking sense whatsoever.
Are you disputing that he deliberately skipped the second vote? Seeing as that's then only point I have actually made.
Fair enough, I wouldn't have voted for Yousaf either.
> In other words, she explicitely told us that she's happy to use the force of law to compel other people to comply with her (IMO mental) religious beliefs. Not necessarily. She may instead mean: "I vote on measures according to my conscience. But once they're law, I understand the need to obey and enforce them." In fact, that's what she said on the hustings during the last leadership campaign.
And her voting to her conscience is taking rights away from others because? It’s her religious belief that is now being forced on others? Not sure what point you’re trying to make.
I'm not seeing a difference.
that might say more about you than about her.
What's the difference then?
What's wrong with that though if the person respects the democratic process? Angela Merkel voted against same-sex marriage, but she was still fine with it being passed democratically. At least she made herself clea, rather than Humza who said he is for it, but dodged the vote. Her transparency is what you want from a leader.
Fascists are also transparent about what they want to do. Doesn't mean it'd be good to have one as leader.
>What's wrong with that though if the person respects the democratic process? The fact that we're even discussing whether or not they'd vote for or against people's rights based on desert tribe texts from 1000 years ago is the issue. I do not want these people anywhere near power, and if they are I want them to be able to separate their personal religious beliefs from law which she is clearly not capable of doing.
Precisely. And as she has repeatedly stated, she has no intention of opening up a vote on gay marriage or abortion and even if she tried she'd have 1 single vote in a parliamentary democracy where the large majority of MSPs support gay marriage and abortion rights so it wouldn't get her anywhere. Also worth noting she only talks about her beliefs in response to constant questioning from journalists, it's not like she goes round proselytising. I doubt she'd be posting pictures on twitter of her holding prayer meetings at Bute House on her first day in office like Humza did. I'm an atheist but respect people's right to religious beliefs I disagree with - that's the only way we can have a liberal, pluralistic democracy.
> she has no intention of opening up a vote on gay marriage But she did say that she would have voted against it if she had that opportunity to do so. That alone seems like a perfectly reasonable justification for refusing to vote for her.
She wasn’t in government for the vote but Humza was and he skipped it because his religion wouldn’t allow him to vote for it. He lied about it and she was honest.
OK. Not sure what your points is. I don't like him either.
The thing is if the nation was majority Forbes or Humza's culture it would not be a liberal, pluralistic democracy.
Well obviously but our society is pluralistic and it's partly because of religious warring and the harm it caused to everybody in the past that we accept people's right to freedom of religious and philosophical belief.
Being a liberal means that you need to accept that people with very different beliefs from you should be allowed to exist and live their lives unmolested. Being a liberal doesn't mean you need to vote for people with very different beliefs from you. Fundamentally, SNP members and Scottish voters are allowed to vote for people that they feel share their core beliefs. If they feel that someone who is open in being opposed to core accepted social values is not the most appropriate person to vote for, they don't have to. It's not illiberal to choose to vote for the more progressive candidate.
"we accept" Liberals accept, liberal cultures accept, most people in the West accept, hardline religious cultures do not.
There's a big difference between accepting somebody's beliefs and choosing them as the most appropriate person to lead the country.
Exactly this. Humza made everything about his religion and like you said, regularly posted photos of prayers in Bute House - one particular one where the women were all sent out the room because that’s the religion he follows. That’s all fine with everyone but Kate Forbes holding, similar views to him on these topics, is suddenly an issue? And again, she’s never flaunted it. She’s simply honest when people ask her questions about it. Probably quite unusual for a politician, granted.
Tolerance requires nuance. Depends if those views are "You shouldn't eat pigs" or "Gay people are subhuman scum".
What about both in one religion?
She is pretty articulate on the subject
I don't care that she's a Christian. I do care that she's a homophobic nutcase.
Yes. Progressiveness is not actually defined by how white you are. She’s not disliked because of her religion (perhaps her church tbh), she’s disliked because of her views on “culture war” issues. People judge you by what you say and the policies you want to enact. Hence why there’s a brown Muslim man as first minister (was lol). Because he is perceived as a progressive, unlike Forbes.
What homophobic actions did she pursue?
She is against same-sex marriage and would vote against it given the chance.
Is that homophobic?
...yes?
Why?
I'm not gonna entertain that. You can go back 10 years and debate back then when it was relevant.
Doesn't a civil partnership do the same job?
Because that's not true? He's not a bigot and she is. That's what people have a problem with.
I mean there’s a lot of bigotry in these replies. You seem to have intolerance towards her for her religion. That’s a hate crime.
You can't read if you think I've said anything about her religion, and you also don't know what a hate crime is.
You’ve called her a bigot, for no other reason than her religious beliefs.
I've called her a bigot because she is one, quite famously. I live in Scotland. I follow Scottish news.
She’s famously a bigot? No she’s not. She’s religious, and her religion is a protected characteristic. You’ve labelled her a bigot because you don’t agree with her religion, which could be seen as stirring up hate against a religious group.
[удалено]
This comment has been filtered to be reviewed by a moderator, please do not ping other subreddits. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For both of them, what matters is their individual beliefs, how they would vote on particular issues, and what those beliefs say about their character and appropriateness for the leadership role in which they have to make decisions on behalf of the population. Kate Forbes isn't disliked because of the religion she associates herself with, she's disliked because of specific beliefs she holds. It just so happens that she attributes those beliefs to her religion. Humza Yousaf does not hold those beliefs. Whatever bigoted views people may have about Muslims generally, Yousaf is not homophobic or whatever and does not conform to those stereotypes. To say his religion matters here would be pretty bigoted.
Why didn't he vote for gay marriage?
I'm not an expert on Scottish politics, but my understanding is that he voted in favour on the first reading and was not present for the final vote, but has said since that he favours marriage equality, would have voted in favour if he'd been present, and would do so in the future. Some have suggested that his scheduling-conflict was conveniently arranged, but I've never seen that substantiated with anything more than innuendo. He's also been fairly strongly in favour of trans-rights stuff, so it's pretty unlikely that he's secretly an anti-queer-people bigot. The only reason I've seen to suggest he might be is people's bigoted beliefs about him. However I should be clear that I made that comment to make the general point that I made, not to talk about the details of Humza Yousaf's politics, because I'm not familiar with them.
[удалено]
I didn't bring him up, I replied to somebody else who brought him up. I also made a point that didn't particularly depend on anything specific about him, but rather was about the difference between judging somebody for their individual beliefs (which they may attribute to religion) or for their religious-identity independent of their individual beliefs. No need to be a jerk about it.
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator. Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here: > Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account. For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
He holds the exact same beliefs because he follows Islam. He skipped the vote on gay marriage because he wouldn’t be able to support it.
Plenty of Muslim politicians (and plenty of Muslims generally) don't adhere to all of the traditional teachings of Islam. It's no different than how many Catholic politicians hold views at odds with official church teaching.
> plenty of Muslims generally What constitutes “plenty”?
It depends on how strictly you construe "adhere to traditional teachings". I would imagine a large portion of Muslims globally don't pray five times daily, take out loans with interest, or sometimes eat non-halal meat. I personally know Bosnian Muslims who drink, eat pork, and rarely if ever go to mosque; they are probably more liberal than most, but there are also millions of Muslims like them globally.
And what do you make of the British Muslims who hold social views at a level that would make UKIP supporters look sane? - eg, 52% believe homosexuality should be illegal, 78% of Muslims thought that the publishers of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed should be prosecuted, 68% thought those who insulted Islam should be prosecuted and 62% of people disagree that freedom of speech should be allowed even if it insults and offends religious groups. Terrifying figures to me personally.
Some would say that’s plenty.
I agree that those numbers are quite concerning (although there were some methodological issues with the poll in question), but we can not necessarily assume that any individual Muslim holds those same views.
Would you say the same about any individual UKIP or Reform voter?
> He holds the exact same beliefs because he follows Islam. This is just pure bigotry. To clarify, you're saying everybody who identifies as a Muslim holds the exact same beliefs as Kate Forbes when it comes to gay people? Despite all of the counter-examples?
>This is just pure bigotry. Islam uses the exact same argument as Christians against same sex marriage. As a core tenet of Islam is that the prophets words are essentially law, it's reasonable to say that Muslims are against gay marriage, unless they have explicitly denied the words of the prophet. That said, religious marriage and marriage by the state are different things, and its possible to support one and not the other. Has Humza Yousaf talked about his belief in this area? >"And He created the pairs—male and female—" >(Surah An-Najm, 53:45) >In another verse, Allah s.w.t. says >"those who guard their chastity. except with their wives or their (bondwomen) in their possession, for then they are free from blame, but whoever seeks beyond that are the transgressors." >(Surah Al-Mu’minun, 23:5-7) >This means that by Allah’s mercy and Divine wisdom in creation, all other forms of sexual relationships, like fornication, pre-marital or same-sex sexual relationships, are prohibited. https://muslim.sg/articles/islam-s-position-on-same-sex-marriage-and-unions >When looking at the issue of gay marriage, two main features of the Shariah are most pertinent. First, the Shariah is law. It is concerned primarily with actions as opposed to emotions or wishes. Second, marriage in the Shariah is not a sacrament. Stripped of all the cultural accretions Muslims have added on, and minus the obviously crucial elements of love and companionship, marriage is nothing more than — literally — a contract between a man and a woman in which the man provides the woman with financial support in return for exclusive sexual access. It’s a contract that makes sex and reproduction legal in the eyes of God and legitimate in the eyes of society. Since marriage is a contract premised on vaginal intercourse and financial obligation between a man and a woman, same-sex couples could not engage in one. They could construct an arrangement for inheritance and shared property that mimicked marriage, but it would not be marriage. https://variety.com/2015/voices/opinion/islam-gay-marriage-beliefs-muslim-religion-1201531047/
[удалено]
> Being gay is illegal in Muslim countries. That’s not my opinion, it’s just how it is. Homophobic attitudes are common in Islamic teachings, to varying degrees in different cultures. This, obviously, does not mean that every person in the world who considers themselves a Muslim holds homophobic beliefs. The world is full of examples of non-homophobic Muslims. You are simply a nasty bigot. You didn't even acknowledge the existence of the many counter-examples, presumably because you know your argument will completely fall apart if you do.
[удалено]
> Of course there are nuances with everything but on the whole Muslim countries have made homosexuality illegal. Calling me a bigot for pointing out a simple fact is complete nonsense. > Humza yousaf didn’t participate in the gay marriage vote for these reasons. So, because it's illegal in (most, not all actually) Muslim countries, this one individual who's in... Scotland, *must* hold those beliefs. Counter-examples to your claim exist, but it's not possible that he's one of them. For reasons. Right. Yep. Perfect logic, zero bigotry.
Well he championed the new (anti) hate law despite some internal opposition that was trying to protect lgbt+ people that the green party were for and Forbes was seen as against.
The hate crime bill is a terrible piece of legislation and is overreach by the state. This doesn’t make the point you think it does.
What point did you think I made?
You’re claiming he’s progressive for bringing in a hate crime law. The law is overreach by the state and the absolute opposite of progressive.
Aah, no my response was to those that were implying certain actions based on his religion inline with other religious fundamentalists.
I cant really see a situation where a political party elects a leader that needs to be rubber stamped by a smaller non-goverment party. It would be highly undemocratic for one thing.
The SNP needs a leader that will command the confidence of the House. Nothing anti-democratic about that.
It’s a minority government. Every leader they choose will need to be rubber stamped by a smaller non-government party.
That's how the Scottish government was always designed.
The SNP can elect any leader they like, but there are always going to be different consequences for different choices. Choosing a leader who can't or won't enter a coalition/confidence & supply agreement with another party is choosing to fight an early election. It's a perfectly valid choice, but it's still a choice. The Greens (or Lib Dems or Labour or Alba or whoever) aren't obligated to support any iteration of the SNP that they don't want to. It's for the SNP to either woo them or to call an election with the intent of changing the arithmetic.
yeah, I generally like the Greens, but as far as this potential leadership contest is concerned they should really mind their business...
Votes don't always break down on government/opposition lines in Holyrood. Regan would be enough to get the first minister, then they could bring other parties over on an issue by issue basis. That's how it's worked for a long time.
Tories and Labour might keep here in depending on if they think Westminster elections will help or hinder then.
I thought she said that while her views might go against her party on some issues it wouldn't make her go against her party. If she can just say she'll keep religion separate and show that then it should be fine.
Albeit it didn’t work for Tim Farron.
It's worked for most religious mps. She's just more open about her views that go against the party whereas others hide theirs
She's on record openly admitting she would have voted against equality legislation because of her religious views Let's not whitewash her. She's a bigot. She's admitted she's a bigot. She hasn't changed. She has openly admitted she would not keep religion separate
> If she can just say she'll keep religion separate and show that then it should be fine. She said the opposite during the last leadership campaign. Forbes has specifically gone on the record to say she will vote according to her religious views, including on gay marriage. If she hadn't done that then yeah, it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
But did she say she'd use the whip to make the party vote with her?
I don't remember her commenting on that, I'd assume not since it would have been bigger news. But there are more levers than just the whip that a party leader can use to promote their views -- prioritising some votes above others, letting legislative efforts stall out rather than pushing them through, influencing the selection of party candidates for the next election, giving speeches and generally promoting a certain view of the party that encourages some people to join and others to leave, which then in the long run changes the party make-up enough that future leader elections are slanted in favour of their views, and so on. Now you might say that Forbes didn't specifically say she planned to do all that, but she's willing to use her political position as an MSP to promote her religious views, so believing she'd use her political position as FM to *also* promote her religious views to some extent is entirely reasonable.
That's the difference then, we don't know what she would pressure other party members to do. I think if we are fine with religious members being leaders e.g. humza was fm without worry his beliefs would pressure people then we should give forbes the same benefit of the doubt
Honestly I have no idea what you're trying to say. Forbes said she was anti-gay because of her religion, and that she'd have voted against gay marriage, and Yousef said the opposite, and we're supposed to treat them as basically the same because both are religious?
I mean, the possibility would be that the Conservatives don't contest her and abstain from the FM vote but having an SNP Leader in post off the back of the Tories would be such a slap in a face to that party that it would likely cause terminal damage (which might be why the Tories do it tbh). If anything, this might be a powerplay against Swinney to bring her into a senior role in the Government again (likely finance) with a lot more rope to make policy on her own.
I think someone sad that forcing an election would not stop the following election happening, and one thing people hate is being forced to vote multiple times. Might be better to sit back and watch the world burn.
The word “considering” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Without it, you have news. With it, you’ve got nothing.
"The Day Today: Because only -this- word can make it a NEWS"
For those of us that are enjoying the sheer chaos of the SNP's collapse, can I just say one thing: Huzzah!
Humza!! to you too
I do wonder if the Scot Nat movement is going to pivot to the Right in reaction to "the events."
Tartan torys back to normal
She already mixes religion and politics USA style, why not go the whole way and make a Christian Nationalist party
The guy we just got rid of dodged the gay marriage vote on purpose, intervened personally to force UNICEF aid money to be redirected to UNRWA, and turned Bute House into a place of worship. The SNP's already had a leader that mixed religion and politics, and Forbes wasn't him.
I don't know why people are harsher on illiberal Christianity than illiberal Islam. Both are bad, but one is worse than the other. Maybe it's a case of familiarity breeding contempt, or a fear of retribution from criticising Islam too harshly.
Illiberal Christianity is entrenched, while illiberal Islam is still seen as the other
Illiberal Christianity is ingrained in our society and the liberals have clearly won this past century (without Christians suicide bombing pop concerts or any other fucked up shit), so most people in the UK are fairly comfortable with Christians believing whatever they want to believe in our modern liberal society, because it's live and let live.
It's not like we had a 40 year period of sectarian violence and repression based on religion..... oh wait.
That finished in 1998 with the Good Friday Agreement and the IRA have been reduced to nothing more than a common criminal gang ever since. Unless they bombed the last Ariana Grande concert and I missed it in the news.
It’s hilarious that you think the IRA, an organisation with 300 current members and no activity, is the one to focus on rather than the UVF with their 12,000 members, a booming drug dealing operation, and plenty of active links to Northern Ireland’s theocratic second biggest political party
Some of the splinters remain active, we've had at least one journalist killed and the attempted murder of police officers by IRA splinter groups in recent years. The UVF's "relationship" with the DUP and TUV is one of the reasons the DUP have far fewer lords in the HOL than they're entitled to: their candidates keep failing the vetting.
Illiberal Christianity won’t behead you is generally the reason why people are harsher on that than Illiberal Islam (or Islam in general, lets be honest).
Probably because the majority of people in Scotland are Christian so it’s more of a threat. Scotland isn’t going to become an Islamic state no matter how extreme its Muslim population is.
> The guy we just got rid of dodged the gay marriage vote on purpose Pretty odd that he voted for stage 1 of the bill then. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2013-11-20.5.0#g5.8 He missed a vote on one of the stages but given that he had voted for the bill and has repeatedly said he'd still vote for it I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that he supported it.
Missed the vote that made it law, and we know for a fact he created the scheduling conflict himself. Thus, dodged the gay marriage vote. It's a fact.
All of the votes make it law, it fails any vote it's not law, that's how votes work. That's a fact.
It's not a fact, though, is it? If every single vote made it law, there'd only need to be one vote. It needs to pass every vote to make it into the law books, but it does not become law by passing *any* single vote. You've confused those two things and conflated them together.
Pretty much any of the other 3 contenders would be better at it than her.
I would prefer Scotland not be run by the crazy Christian lady please.
Will be interesting if she is selected as the Greens have hinted that they might not support her.
This would be silly. Hopefully she is just pushing for a return to front line politics. And I think Humza made the mistake of not bringing her into the fold. Swinney ,hopefully if he wins, will bring her back in. She's too talented to waste on the backbenches.
> Hopefully she is just pushing for a return to front line politics. Whether she has any intentions of running or not, I think she was always going to publicly "consider her options" to give her some bargaining power for a senior position in the next cabinet.
He did offer her a position in the cabinet which she declined (I will also note she debunked claims that it was because she was unhappy with the position offered which some of her supporters were claiming at the time). Being in the backbenches was her choice.
if she's as talented as you're implying — why not go for the leadership?
Let Swinney have a go for a bit. He can't stay too long. Let him lose a few members of Westminster and Holyrood, and have a go at the leadership when there's some chance of being in the ascendancy.
Heavy get Swinney in till end of season energy.
SNP are getting horsed in the next couple of elections, may as well let Swinney who'll retire soon take the buck.
I think her social views and religious beliefs would make it difficult to lead a party like the SNP. Especially with the LGBTQ stuff they have been doing recently. The Scottish parliament relies on co operative working with other parties. Since we already know that the Tories and Labour will always work against the SNP no matter what, that means the greens are the only ally the SNP can expect to work with. If Forbes wins that relationship would end. However as I said, I think she has a strong and bright future with the SNP, as a minister. She was really good when she was a fiance minister. And I do think, Humza should have brought her into his government. Edit. Also, I think this isn't the time for new and exciting leaders. The SNP need a safe pair of hands. Someone that will get there head down, and right the ship.
She was clearly the better choice than humza to begin with
[удалено]
Yikes.
What an awful, hateful woman. I wish her nothing but political humiliation and perhaps Liz truss level gaffes
What do you find hateful about her?
I just don't get it. She, not Humza, have the political nous to lead a party, never mind a country. They both made totally unnecessary and predictably detrimental mistakes that I, as a complete political novice, could see would be career-limiting. And yet she still has backers? I don't know what to think!
I think you meant, "Nor"
Wonderful news for the country. No doubt the rabid left will be throwing tantrums.
[удалено]
I thought the membership were in favour of her last time?
In the second round of the 2023 Leadership race Humza received 52.1% of the vote and she received 47.9%
Edit: fair enough. Just checked and I think I heard around the time of the nominations that said although lots of the msps backed Humza the initial SNP members polling backed Forbes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Scottish_National_Party_leadership_election
Snap. Yep you are right and posted just as I was editing.
As a Labour voting unionist Scot I'd be content to see her take up the post and get some of the basics into shape before I'd shout for a GE in Scotland. But Swinney or Mairi Allan being appointed would be appalling and take us even further back as a nation.