exile Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said: It's a tactic that; 1 - Ignores the fact that Scotland can't wait any longer for Independence 2 - Kicks the can down the road for another 2.3.4.5 years Sure but my point is that if Swinney s a stop gap then the reasons for/against him are not just abouthis own personal qualities/liablities, but what or rather who he might pave the way for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 58 minutes ago, Malcolm said: Only the loony fringe would have a problem with Kate Forbes in power. Some fear she is not supportive of a society that is equal for all. Is wanting a society that's equal for all 'loony fringe' now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertsscot Posted May 1 Author Share Posted May 1 2 hours ago, Malcolm said: Ash regan was my first choice last year, closely followed by kate forbes. as long as its somebody that doesnt do any deals with the wierdo greens. Surely better off getting the lib dems on board in the interim, rebuild some credibility and then try and get an overall majority to table independence in the next parliament. Didn't the Lib Dems, along with Labour, support many of those wierdo (sic) green policies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertsscot Posted May 1 Author Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, exile said: Some fear she is not supportive of a society that is equal for all. Is wanting a society that's equal for all 'loony fringe' now? Depends what is meant be equality. Civil partnerships had already been introduced and many people thiught they gave the legal equality and recognition that same sex couples wanted. Many conservative Christians supported their introduction, seeing them as fair and just, whilst nonetheless retaining the belief that marriage by definition was between a man and a woman - which is probably exactly the definition found in every dictionary until about 15 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 6 hours ago, Hertsscot said: Depends what is meant be equality. Civil partnerships had already been introduced and many people thiught they gave the legal equality and recognition that same sex couples wanted. Many conservative Christians supported their introduction, seeing them as fair and just, whilst nonetheless retaining the belief that marriage by definition was between a man and a woman - which is probably exactly the definition found in every dictionary until about 15 years ago. I agree with this, things can be equal but different. I have no problem with gay marriage. It’s all a bit semantics but I appreciate that these semantics are important to people. We then get in to a place where should marriage only be allowed between Christians, and civil partnerships for non believers. personally I don’t care, not believing in religion or marriage particularly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 6 hours ago, Hertsscot said: Didn't the Lib Dems, along with Labour, support many of those wierdo (sic) green policies? you are absolutely right. I don’t really like the Lib Dems, and ACH is a bell end. I think the Lib Dems are seen as a more centerist party that whilst agreeing with the gender nonsense would not push it as an agenda. It would allow the snp to govern and pass legislation until another election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 6 hours ago, Hertsscot said: Depends what is meant be equality. Civil partnerships had already been introduced and many people thiught they gave the legal equality and recognition that same sex couples wanted. Many conservative Christians supported their introduction, seeing them as fair and just, whilst nonetheless retaining the belief that marriage by definition was between a man and a woman - which is probably exactly the definition found in every dictionary until about 15 years ago. The question remains, is it 'loony fringe' to want equality for all? Is it not the case that support for gay marriage is now mainstream, so why should people who fought for it and defend it be seen as the loony fringe? That is demonising a minority, surely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 24 minutes ago, exile said: The question remains, is it 'loony fringe' to want equality for all? Is it not the case that support for gay marriage is now mainstream, so why should people who fought for it and defend it be seen as the loony fringe? That is demonising a minority, surely? nobody said defending gay marriage was loony fringe. You took that because I said that only the loony fringe of the party would oppose her. Whilst Kate has personal views that marriage should be between a man and a woman, I don’t think there has ever been any suggestion that she does not accept that society embraces gay marriage and she would not seek to change that. I don’t see any problem with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 and whilst I don’t agree with her personal position on that point, I admire her for fronting it up and being honest about her beliefs even though it’s at odds with her parties belief. we don’t all have to agree on everything. It’s toys out the pram behaviour from those that don’t like her personal views despite it having no impact on party policy. Similar thing in football… fans don’t want a manager because they played for a certain club, despite the fact they would do a good job at theirs. Completely illogical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 11 hours ago, Malcolm said: Ash regan was my first choice last year, She'd be the SNP's Truss. Thick as mince. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 9 hours ago, exile said: Is wanting a society that's equal for all 'loony fringe' now? It is when it means pumping confused teenagers full of puberty blockers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDYER63 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 8 hours ago, exile said: Some fear she is not supportive of a society that is equal for all. Is wanting a society that's equal for all 'loony fringe' now? Tbf everyone’s idea of an equal society is different. I imagine there are issues that every one of us would draw a line at or regard as a step too far , either due to their beliefs or , in respect of practical financial help, the cost of creating an equal balance. We all have a different interpretation of what an equal society actually is. I have never heard her say anything that would give me a concern , and I have no religion and pretty much dont believe in it at all. I also have a gay sister who voted for Kate Forbes last time so she is not offending everyone who may be affected by gay marriage. I think most level headed people realise she is one person in an entire government and her influence is restricted. Canny believe I am agreeing with Malcolm 🤦♀️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 minute ago, TDYER63 said: Tbf everyone’s idea of an equal society is different. I imagine there are issues that every one of us would draw a line at or regard as a step too far , either due to their beliefs or , in respect of practical financial help, the cost of creating an equal balance. We all have a different interpretation of what an equal society actually is. I have never heard her say anything that would give me a concern , and I have no religion and pretty much dont believe in it at all. I also have a gay sister who voted for Kate Forbes last time so she is not offending everyone who may be affected by gay marriage. I think most level headed people realise she is one person in an entire government and her influence is restricted. Canny believe I am agreeing with Malcolm 🤦♀️ There's also literally gay people in the SNP who are endorsing Forbes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDYER63 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 19 hours ago, TDYER63 said: I have a branch meeting tonight. I hadn’t intended going but If I can steer the conversation away from how many pound shilling and pence are in the branch account I am going to try and change some opinions . I made it abundantly clear Humza was not going to cope , but they all voted for him. The only way, as you say, to stand a chance is to break from ‘continuity candidates’ . It might not work, but the party are left with few choices. Waste of time. Branch conclusion : Kate is intelligent but naive , cost us votes on her performance at last leadership contest, polarising. John is fantastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 17 hours ago, phart said: The point still stands if they won't switch their vote. I want Forbes to run and win. Although not because I think she will a miracle worker, but to show the opposite of that. It's done for now. There isn't a mechanism to independence that isn't through permission by the UK goverment. I'd like to see what she does, what ideas she has. She might be smart to wait it out a bit, get her family up a bit. Get a cabinet position in Swinney's government and take it from there. That is a point that needs to be dealt with. If we are in a voluntary union, the question should be basked of unionists over and over again: "What is the mechanism by which Scotland can leave the union?" If the only answer is "you can't", that should be made absolutely clear to the people of Scotland. That would be confirmation that we are not in a union but in a prison. Meanwhile SNP politicians talk about "building support" and similar bland non-statements. What's the point of building support if the ultimate destination is "No, you can't have a section 30". No wonder so many independence struggles around the world have involved violence. Anyway if it's Swinney, we will get nowhere. That's why the media are promoting him. Kick the can down the road. Fuck that. Swinney represents taking the ball to the corner flag to waste time when your team is 1-0 down. Edited May 2 by Alibi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertsscot Posted May 2 Author Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, exile said: The question remains, is it 'loony fringe' to want equality for all? Is it not the case that support for gay marriage is now mainstream, so why should people who fought for it and defend it be seen as the loony fringe? That is demonising a minority, surely? It is now mainstream but it wasn't when the debate was originally held. I imagine Forbes felt there was equality via civil partnerships but without undermining the traditional view of marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 4 minutes ago, TDYER63 said: Waste of time. Branch conclusion : Kate is intelligent but naive , cost us votes on her performance at last leadership contest, polarising. John is fantastic. Not surprised. I'm sure my branch (if I was still a member) would similarly still be full of unimaginative Sturgeon loyalists who would prefer to be discussing the next Saturday's street stall than actually making sensible decisions that might steer the good ship SNP away from the iceberg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 12 hours ago, exile said: I'd prefer to see Forbes v Flynn as a proper debate about the future One thing we should have learned from the last leadership vote is that we should never again be dragged into the idea of televised debates to appoint the SNP leader. Electing a new SNP leader is a matter for SNP members, and only SNP members, and should have fuk all to do with anybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 Even to a complete neutral the optics of John Swinney running for SNP leader again must be hilarious Nearly as hilarious as the high echelons of the SNP insisting that he is elected as SNP leader and is the "only one" for the job Surely to fuck with the almost all partisan "journalists" that will be at his press conference there must be one that can easily sink his "campaigh" there and then "What will be different from the last time you were leader John" "What is different from 13 months ago when you admitted you being SNP leader again would be in so many words a disaster" "You are up to your neck in the finances and membership numbers scandal, not to mention the plot to jail Alex Salmond - do you think this continuity will be any good for the SNP" "You think anal sex, porn and transgender self ID should be taught to primary children" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariokempes Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 17 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said: Even to a complete neutral the optics of John Swinney running for SNP leader again must be hilarious Nearly as hilarious as the high echelons of the SNP insisting that he is elected as SNP leader and is the "only one" for the job Surely to fuck with the almost all partisan "journalists" that will be at his press conference there must be one that can easily sink his "campaigh" there and then "What will be different from the last time you were leader John" "What is different from 13 months ago when you admitted you being SNP leader again would be in so many words a disaster" "You are up to your neck in the finances and membership numbers scandal, not to mention the plot to jail Alex Salmond - do you think this continuity will be any good for the SNP" "You think anal sex, porn and transgender self ID should be taught to primary children" And Gupta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, TDYER63 said: Waste of time. Branch conclusion : Kate is intelligent but naive , cost us votes on her performance at last leadership contest, polarising. John is fantastic. Sums up the state of the SNP membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 26 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said: "What will be different from the last time you were leader John" That one is easy. This time he will be First Minister without having to win an election. 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redz Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, TDYER63 said: Waste of time. Branch conclusion : Kate is intelligent but naive , cost us votes on her performance at last leadership contest, polarising. John is fantastic. I only logged in to ask you how it went We can see how this pans out - However, it's likely I'll bail and rethink any further contribution when they begin to get interested in independence again What a fkn unnecessary pantomime this has been allowed to become Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 Looks like a grubby deal between Swinney and Forbes Silly girl She will be making a statement later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.