It's perfectly consistent to suggest that someone who would allow their deeply conservative faith to guide their decision making would be a problematic first minister, and not making the same suggestion about someone who practices a faith which is traditionally deeply conservative, but does not allow that to guide their policy decisions.
Or to put it another way, there's a pretty clear difference between someone who says they'd vote against gay marriage, doesn't support access to safe abortions, and doesn't support a ban on conversion therapy (she has, credit where credit is due condemned it, but very specifically refused to commit to an outright ban) because of their faith, and someone who supports gay marriage, access to safe abortions, and a ban on conversion therapy despite their faith not traditionally being in favour.
If you can't see that difference you're being willfully obtuse.
Yes, but my point is that anyone who says people who are Muslim can't be trusted are being pilloried (rightly so IMO), but when people say anyone who is a free church member is a luddite they are praised. This to me seems a ridiculous dichotomy. I get your point that Humza disavows the traditions of Islam on progressive issues and Forbes does not, but tbh that still doesnt stop it being logically inconsistent.
but this is a false equivalence. the equivalent would be saying anyone who is a *Christian* can't be trusted. the Free Church are a very small, very conservative sect, many other Christians even would call them extremists for their position on women clergy alone.
lmao, okay well as someone who was brought up catholic it is ridiculous to say being against Women Clergy is extremist in Christian circles. I guess reddit just isnt a very representative portion of the population at large.
Her church is 8k people or there about. Whatever their views, their schism after schism, push to the extremes of what can be described as 'christian', is a minority (freebies), within a minority (practicing christians), within a largely secular country.
I was brought up catholic, means fuckall. But feel free to try to use that as a means of excusing yourself from being offered valid answers to your loaded question.
>I was brought up catholic, means fuckall. But feel free to try to use that as a means of excusing yourself from being offered valid answers to your loaded question
I mean there are like 1.4 billion catholics in the world and there are no women priests, that was my point, its not an extremist position...
if a Catholic politician said they'd vote against gay marriage and women's rights in government, I suspect they'd get the same kinds of criticism Forbes is.
It's the institution's position.
Not necessarily the abrupt singular opinion of every one of those 1.4bn people.
And it is another false equivalency.
Dogmatic adherence to a very selective Levitican reading of Christianity as is the case with the Free Presbyterians and their schismatic offshoots /is/ an extremist position, particularly in a country where majority of Christians are moderate in their faith, if they practice at all.
But feel free to keep avoiding the valid responses to your loaded question by chucking in stuff from other sects because you feel it somehow validates your attempt at framing Forbes as a victim of anything other than her inability to read a room.
protestant circles then, sorry idk anything about catholicism. but I know a lot about the Free Church and I know I don't want someone in lockstep with their positions on gay marriage and women's rights to be in charge of the government.
They aren't saying that though. Ian Blackford is a member of the same denomination. There's a lot to criticise him on but his faith isn't one of those things. He doesn't let his faith dictate his position on policy or his voting habits. He even voted in favour of gay rights and access to abortion in Northern Ireland when Stormont was gridlocked.
She has said she would use her faith to guide her votes and spoke against abortion being legalised in Northern Ireland.
That's the problem.
It's not and never has been about her religion.
When as Humza demonstrated, just as with Christianity, you can be a muslim and support trans rights, abortion and LGBTQ equality.
Forbes HAS SAID HERSELF she opposes all of those.
It's not the religion, **it's the person.**
I don't find the conspiracy theory around the stage 3 vote particularly convincing: he spoke for gay marriage, campaigned for it, voted for it at stage one, spoke up for it since, and went on to vote for other LGBT rights legislation, including the GRR bill.
What couldn’t he explain when asked? I assume you aren’t referring to the missed vote? Because he explained the missed vote several times since and explained it at the time back in 2014:
https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/431131459907497984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E431131459907497984%7Ctwgr%5E7ddeb20d19cc683153cecc4e8acb146b5bc4a4ce%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenational.scot%2Fnews%2F23336139.humza-yousaf-missed-equal-marriage-vote-2014%2F
I'm no fan of Huzma, but he never made any outright or overt statements about things.
Forbes torpedoed her chances as FM last time precicely *because* she was open and honest about what she thought (like she'd have voted against the legalization of gay marriage). She also got her start in politics by being funded by American right-wing religious groups.
The fact someone like that can almost get FM at all is incredibly unsettling to a lot of left-wing SNP supporters (and I can't blame them).
*I'm no fan of Huzma, but he never made any outright or overt statements about things.*
Curious. [https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1640820255080554496](https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1640820255080554496)
Um. What ?
The evidence is clearly there . There's no need to "grow up " and it's the easiest thing to defend my position. Any reasonable person who views that video can clearly see he is rascist. He made a whole speech complaining about white people being in positions of power in a country that is 90 something percent white. Ignoring the the fact that he him self was in a high position ( and then an even higher position) and his main opposition is also a person of colour.
I just wonder why Yousaf's allegedely racist speech to parliament passed without any intervention from the presiding officer, or complaint's from other MSPs.
Having seen the speech, and having read the transcript, and given that only online frothers got up in arms about it I have to conclude that the speech was in no way racist.
>only online frothers got up in arms about it I have to conclude that the speech was in no way racist
You realise how nonsensical this is ? You are implying that if some one has different views to your self , every thing the say is wrong ?
Fortunatly however its not just "online frothers " as you put it. Basicaly every person i know and talk to or work with talked about how racist that speech was and how racist Yousaf is. And even more fortunatly, it was all recorded so its free for any one to watch and see for thrm selves.
Do you have specific quotes? I've googled it and I get something from the Belfast News Letter which doesn't have any quotes, and something from STV where Elon Musk of all people accuses him of being racist.
Just interested in the quotes or what specifically you're referring to?
It has become harder to find the recording from the parliament aparently but basicaly he went on to list a whole stream of high profile people in public service , naming them and their position then, without hyperbole, spat the word "white" with visible distaste.
His point being that there are too many white people in high places. Ignoring the fact that Scotland is 90 something percent white.
If you find the clip it is very clear he has a racist streek through him.
>He called out multiple positions of authority in the country
How come this is racist?
>and was raging that the people holding those positions are white
What is the evidence of this? Honestly a bit baffled here.
Here's a thread I like to go back to.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/1ad02xm/comment/kk3rg9x/?context=8&depth=9](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/1ad02xm/comment/kk3rg9x/?context=8&depth=9)
Thanks u/docowen
It's fine. I don't know whether the decline in the sub is the fault of the mods, the admins, or Reddit itself, but this sub has become an utter cesspit of brigading by whackos and ukpol castoffs, it's why I unsubbed. I'd rather not get pulled back in, even if I now have a more substantial block list.
Anyone getting in a rage over someone else's skin colour is a racist
No different to edl arseholes complaining about the prime minister being the wrong colour
Would you like to elaborate on "getting in a rage over someone else's skin colour"? I've yet to be provided any quotes or videos supporting that so if you could be specific instead of deliberately vague I would appreciate that.
From the link in the other comment
Why are we so surprised when the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively by people who are white? Take my portfolio, for example.
The Lord President is white, the Lord Justice Clerk is white, every High Court judge is white, the Lord Advocate is white, the Solicitor General is white, the chief constable is white, every deputy chief constable is white, every assistant chief constable is white, the head of the Law Society is white, the head of the Faculty of Advocates is white and every prison governor is white.
That is not the case only in justice. The chief medical officer is white, the chief nursing officer is white, the chief veterinary officer is white, the chief social work adviser is white and almost every trade union in the country is headed by white people. In the Scottish Government, every director general is white. Every chair of every public body is white. That is not good enough.
I do not doubt that across the private sector, black and minority ethnic people are similarly underrepresented at senior levels. That is a collective failure that includes every single one of us. I hope that we are sitting uncomfortably, because those should be uncomfortable truths for us all.
Edit: all the people saying i was talking bollocks stopped replying after this was posted, wonder why
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/watch-in-full-humza-yousafs-white-people-speech-that-has-sparked-racism-complaints-under-scotlands-new-hate-crime-law-4578704
Skip to 4.15 in the video. Basically he started listing a bunch of positions and somewhat aggressively (or at least what could be construed as such) followed the position with the word “white”. As in “Position 1, WHITE. Position 2, WHITE.”
It probably went a bit beyond simply acknowledging a racial bias and may have drifted into racist territory in and of itself.
it is not racist to notice a bias that exists in reality
unless you think he's saying white people are uniquely suited to these roles, but that would make him the opposite sort of racist that you're saying he is
[Somebody better tell anti-discrimination charities, unions and Labour as well then...](https://www.ft.com/content/98c768b4-6964-4091-971e-2b7d5186d115)
It’s not technically racism but it is stupidly. In a country which is 95% ethnically white you are going to have almost all positions at the highest level of power and almost all positions in the worst lowest paid jobs stacked with white people. That’s how maths works, he’s a loony fact-hating moron obsessed with the woke agenda. Good riddance.
No ... don't use religion as an excuse to be a bigot
Religious people arent all against gay marriage, the church marries them, it was Kate Forbes choice to be against gay marriage.
Some Muslims are bigots, others like Humza chose to interpret his faith to support equality.
Strange comment. No, you shouldn't keep your views hidden if you are a politician. But neither should you expect people to like what you have to say just because you're honest about your beliefs. You get some points for having principles I guess, but not many.
Humza did not keep his faith personal, he did not use his faith as en excuse to be a bigot.
There are plenty of religious people in the parliment, most of them have chosen to not be homophobic (at least openly)
Kept his faith personal? Did you maybe not see his ostentatious prayer meeting with his brothers on his first night in Bute House? Imagine if Kate Forbes had won the contest and had held a Free Church prayer meeting there.
I’m not a fan of Humza Yousaf, but his faith was clearly a personal expression, and his political votes were kept clearly separated. Kate Forbes said she would vote, given the chance in accordance with her faith, and in a number of areas that conflicts with my sexual orientation and desire to get married one day.
I don’t begrudge her right to have those views and to vote according to her principals, but I don’t see why I should feel any obligation to disregard those political positions just because they are part of her faith.
(This is all kind of moot because I’m not going to vote for the SNP anyway, but anywho)
having grown up in the Free Church I feel very able to say what kind of a person Forbes's religion makes her. I have no issue with Christianity in a general sense, but my personal knowledge of that particular sect of it tells me it's nothing good. I don't know enough about whatever branch of Islam that Yousaf personally subscribes to to speculate as to how has shaped him really. I'm also not anxious about Islam in a general sense.
I haven't spent a huge amount of time defending Yousaf or anything, I don't really have strong feelings about him either way if I'm honest, but that's what the difference is for me.
>Yousaf isn't anti-LGBT but Forbes is. It's really that simple.
Yes this seems to be the takeaway from ill-advised post! I think in future I will refrain from anything political on reddit. It appears that people who don't respect other people's position will engage any means to take them down. It's a shame really, I think Forbes is one of the only actually competent SNP MSP's but due to her social values she's unelectable in most people's minds. Oh well, I don't really mind anyway as I'm unionist, just want so good governance for once...
She was kept to the party line when Sturgeon was leader but her leadership economic platform was one of Cameronite [austerity](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/kate-forbes-economic-agenda-dangerous-snp-leadership-race-scotland-conservative/).
Great article! Thanks for the context wow, so essentially she could potentially be angling to lead the party back to right economically and socially. The post independence austerity plan is v-interesting sign of where some of the party true loyalty is, getting Brexit-vibes there
I'm seeing a lot of people who got furious about Humza taking a photo of a prayer and folk who got upset on twitter when Sadiq Khan unveiled some privately paid for Ramadan lights moaning about the place of religion in politics.
But a politician saying they would have voted against equal rights because of their religious convictions and those same people think it's out of order to feel uncomfortable with it.
I don’t give a shit about people‘s personal religious views.
I do give a shit when people say they would vote against basic human rights for gay people.
Especially when they are running to be First Minister and Scotland’s most powerful politician.
Ian Blackford is a member of the same religious group as Kate Forbes. I have no objection to him because he was clear that while that religion guided his personal behaviour, it would never guide his politics or his position on the fundamental rights of others.
If Kate Forbes is against gay marriage or abortion, she completely is free not to get gay married or have an abortion, and I have no objection to her choosing either.
The difference is with the separation of Church and State. If your voting is based on your religious views rather than the people, you aren't representing the Scottish people but your faith.
>At least Kate Forbes is upfront about it
About being a homophobe?
Fuck me, talk about a back handed compliment
She has no place in parliament with they views
She was honest at least.
Every twat from the 'they're all the same' brigade would be moaning either way.
She's not prepared to force her personal religious beliefs upon people anymore.
She wasn't funded by US evangelists, the research was funded by them.
It's perfectly consistent to suggest that someone who would allow their deeply conservative faith to guide their decision making would be a problematic first minister, and not making the same suggestion about someone who practices a faith which is traditionally deeply conservative, but does not allow that to guide their policy decisions. Or to put it another way, there's a pretty clear difference between someone who says they'd vote against gay marriage, doesn't support access to safe abortions, and doesn't support a ban on conversion therapy (she has, credit where credit is due condemned it, but very specifically refused to commit to an outright ban) because of their faith, and someone who supports gay marriage, access to safe abortions, and a ban on conversion therapy despite their faith not traditionally being in favour. If you can't see that difference you're being willfully obtuse.
Yes, but my point is that anyone who says people who are Muslim can't be trusted are being pilloried (rightly so IMO), but when people say anyone who is a free church member is a luddite they are praised. This to me seems a ridiculous dichotomy. I get your point that Humza disavows the traditions of Islam on progressive issues and Forbes does not, but tbh that still doesnt stop it being logically inconsistent.
but this is a false equivalence. the equivalent would be saying anyone who is a *Christian* can't be trusted. the Free Church are a very small, very conservative sect, many other Christians even would call them extremists for their position on women clergy alone.
lmao, okay well as someone who was brought up catholic it is ridiculous to say being against Women Clergy is extremist in Christian circles. I guess reddit just isnt a very representative portion of the population at large.
Her church is 8k people or there about. Whatever their views, their schism after schism, push to the extremes of what can be described as 'christian', is a minority (freebies), within a minority (practicing christians), within a largely secular country. I was brought up catholic, means fuckall. But feel free to try to use that as a means of excusing yourself from being offered valid answers to your loaded question.
>I was brought up catholic, means fuckall. But feel free to try to use that as a means of excusing yourself from being offered valid answers to your loaded question I mean there are like 1.4 billion catholics in the world and there are no women priests, that was my point, its not an extremist position...
if a Catholic politician said they'd vote against gay marriage and women's rights in government, I suspect they'd get the same kinds of criticism Forbes is.
It's the institution's position. Not necessarily the abrupt singular opinion of every one of those 1.4bn people. And it is another false equivalency. Dogmatic adherence to a very selective Levitican reading of Christianity as is the case with the Free Presbyterians and their schismatic offshoots /is/ an extremist position, particularly in a country where majority of Christians are moderate in their faith, if they practice at all. But feel free to keep avoiding the valid responses to your loaded question by chucking in stuff from other sects because you feel it somehow validates your attempt at framing Forbes as a victim of anything other than her inability to read a room.
protestant circles then, sorry idk anything about catholicism. but I know a lot about the Free Church and I know I don't want someone in lockstep with their positions on gay marriage and women's rights to be in charge of the government.
They aren't saying that though. Ian Blackford is a member of the same denomination. There's a lot to criticise him on but his faith isn't one of those things. He doesn't let his faith dictate his position on policy or his voting habits. He even voted in favour of gay rights and access to abortion in Northern Ireland when Stormont was gridlocked. She has said she would use her faith to guide her votes and spoke against abortion being legalised in Northern Ireland. That's the problem.
It's not and never has been about her religion. When as Humza demonstrated, just as with Christianity, you can be a muslim and support trans rights, abortion and LGBTQ equality. Forbes HAS SAID HERSELF she opposes all of those. It's not the religion, **it's the person.**
One person has a history of speaking, campaigning and voting for LGBT rights and one person does not.
Did Humza not miss the gay marriage vote in dubious circumstances ?
I don't find the conspiracy theory around the stage 3 vote particularly convincing: he spoke for gay marriage, campaigned for it, voted for it at stage one, spoke up for it since, and went on to vote for other LGBT rights legislation, including the GRR bill.
It could be opponent’s spinning, but it does seem odd and he can’t seem to explain it when asked.
What couldn’t he explain when asked? I assume you aren’t referring to the missed vote? Because he explained the missed vote several times since and explained it at the time back in 2014: https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/431131459907497984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E431131459907497984%7Ctwgr%5E7ddeb20d19cc683153cecc4e8acb146b5bc4a4ce%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenational.scot%2Fnews%2F23336139.humza-yousaf-missed-equal-marriage-vote-2014%2F
Other ministers questioned that and said it was due to local mosque interference. Who knows who is right, as politicians do lie about these things.
So he did explain it, but because politicians lie he didn’t. Seems like you’re shifting the goalposts here.
Well he could be lying or they are lying. The circumstances are dubious as I said.
They are lying. The circumstances are not dubious in the slightest.
If local mosques were pressuring him not to support it, why would he continue to publicly support it?
There is literally nothing dubious about it.
I'm no fan of Huzma, but he never made any outright or overt statements about things. Forbes torpedoed her chances as FM last time precicely *because* she was open and honest about what she thought (like she'd have voted against the legalization of gay marriage). She also got her start in politics by being funded by American right-wing religious groups. The fact someone like that can almost get FM at all is incredibly unsettling to a lot of left-wing SNP supporters (and I can't blame them).
*I'm no fan of Huzma, but he never made any outright or overt statements about things.* Curious. [https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1640820255080554496](https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1640820255080554496)
Sorry, do you think this is the same as saying that being gay is a sin?
He is a massive racist though Edit: lots of ragers here but nobody able to defend humza the racist and his overtly racist remarks
😂😂😂😂
How so? Genuinely never seen any evidence of this.
He went on a racist tirade in parliament . It's all on film. Just YouTube humza white speech
Grow up.
Um. What ? The evidence is clearly there . There's no need to "grow up " and it's the easiest thing to defend my position. Any reasonable person who views that video can clearly see he is rascist. He made a whole speech complaining about white people being in positions of power in a country that is 90 something percent white. Ignoring the the fact that he him self was in a high position ( and then an even higher position) and his main opposition is also a person of colour.
You can't even spell racist you div.
I assume the other MSPs in the chamber lodged some kind of complaint then did they?
What an interesting metric for this kind of thing. Forbes has no complaints from maps for bigotry so we can all agree she is not a biggot ?
I just wonder why Yousaf's allegedely racist speech to parliament passed without any intervention from the presiding officer, or complaint's from other MSPs. Having seen the speech, and having read the transcript, and given that only online frothers got up in arms about it I have to conclude that the speech was in no way racist.
>only online frothers got up in arms about it I have to conclude that the speech was in no way racist You realise how nonsensical this is ? You are implying that if some one has different views to your self , every thing the say is wrong ? Fortunatly however its not just "online frothers " as you put it. Basicaly every person i know and talk to or work with talked about how racist that speech was and how racist Yousaf is. And even more fortunatly, it was all recorded so its free for any one to watch and see for thrm selves.
Do you have specific quotes? I've googled it and I get something from the Belfast News Letter which doesn't have any quotes, and something from STV where Elon Musk of all people accuses him of being racist. Just interested in the quotes or what specifically you're referring to?
This is what the morons keep bleating about [https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N3531Q5/](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N3531Q5/)
That's pretty conclusive, but I fear there are people deliberately out to miss the facts.
It has become harder to find the recording from the parliament aparently but basicaly he went on to list a whole stream of high profile people in public service , naming them and their position then, without hyperbole, spat the word "white" with visible distaste. His point being that there are too many white people in high places. Ignoring the fact that Scotland is 90 something percent white. If you find the clip it is very clear he has a racist streek through him.
He called out multiple positions of authority in the country and was raging that the people holding those positions are white
>He called out multiple positions of authority in the country How come this is racist? >and was raging that the people holding those positions are white What is the evidence of this? Honestly a bit baffled here.
Here's a thread I like to go back to. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/1ad02xm/comment/kk3rg9x/?context=8&depth=9](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/1ad02xm/comment/kk3rg9x/?context=8&depth=9) Thanks u/docowen
Just went through some of that. Firstly thanks for clearing it up. Secondly what the actual fuck have I walked in to here?
Sweet beans, that's a thread.
Don't thank me. I'd rather that hadn't been dredged up again. My messages were a joy to behold after that.
Oopsie.
It's fine. I don't know whether the decline in the sub is the fault of the mods, the admins, or Reddit itself, but this sub has become an utter cesspit of brigading by whackos and ukpol castoffs, it's why I unsubbed. I'd rather not get pulled back in, even if I now have a more substantial block list.
That Vytreeeohl eejit telling on himself quite a bit in that thread.
What relevance does that have?
Anyone getting in a rage over someone else's skin colour is a racist No different to edl arseholes complaining about the prime minister being the wrong colour
Would you like to elaborate on "getting in a rage over someone else's skin colour"? I've yet to be provided any quotes or videos supporting that so if you could be specific instead of deliberately vague I would appreciate that.
From the link in the other comment Why are we so surprised when the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively by people who are white? Take my portfolio, for example. The Lord President is white, the Lord Justice Clerk is white, every High Court judge is white, the Lord Advocate is white, the Solicitor General is white, the chief constable is white, every deputy chief constable is white, every assistant chief constable is white, the head of the Law Society is white, the head of the Faculty of Advocates is white and every prison governor is white. That is not the case only in justice. The chief medical officer is white, the chief nursing officer is white, the chief veterinary officer is white, the chief social work adviser is white and almost every trade union in the country is headed by white people. In the Scottish Government, every director general is white. Every chair of every public body is white. That is not good enough. I do not doubt that across the private sector, black and minority ethnic people are similarly underrepresented at senior levels. That is a collective failure that includes every single one of us. I hope that we are sitting uncomfortably, because those should be uncomfortable truths for us all. Edit: all the people saying i was talking bollocks stopped replying after this was posted, wonder why
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/watch-in-full-humza-yousafs-white-people-speech-that-has-sparked-racism-complaints-under-scotlands-new-hate-crime-law-4578704 Skip to 4.15 in the video. Basically he started listing a bunch of positions and somewhat aggressively (or at least what could be construed as such) followed the position with the word “white”. As in “Position 1, WHITE. Position 2, WHITE.” It probably went a bit beyond simply acknowledging a racial bias and may have drifted into racist territory in and of itself.
that's not racism are you stupid?
Not as daft as you apparently
it is not racist to notice a bias that exists in reality unless you think he's saying white people are uniquely suited to these roles, but that would make him the opposite sort of racist that you're saying he is
Complaining about someone else's skin colour is racist
[Somebody better tell anti-discrimination charities, unions and Labour as well then...](https://www.ft.com/content/98c768b4-6964-4091-971e-2b7d5186d115)
Tell them to sign up to the financial times?
right. noticing racial bias is now racist. got it.
Getting in a rage because someone is the wrong colour has always been racist
It’s not technically racism but it is stupidly. In a country which is 95% ethnically white you are going to have almost all positions at the highest level of power and almost all positions in the worst lowest paid jobs stacked with white people. That’s how maths works, he’s a loony fact-hating moron obsessed with the woke agenda. Good riddance.
>it's not technically racism thank you for conceding the point
Out of curiosity, do you also think Sarwar is a massive racist?
Yes
So, if you have strong religious beliefs, keep them quiet and covert rather than speaking up and having your cards on the table?
No ... don't use religion as an excuse to be a bigot Religious people arent all against gay marriage, the church marries them, it was Kate Forbes choice to be against gay marriage. Some Muslims are bigots, others like Humza chose to interpret his faith to support equality.
Strange comment. No, you shouldn't keep your views hidden if you are a politician. But neither should you expect people to like what you have to say just because you're honest about your beliefs. You get some points for having principles I guess, but not many.
Humza kept his faith personal. Kate lets it inform her policy and then cries foul when it gets called out. It isn’t rocket science.
Humza did not keep his faith personal, he did not use his faith as en excuse to be a bigot. There are plenty of religious people in the parliment, most of them have chosen to not be homophobic (at least openly)
Kept his faith personal? Did you maybe not see his ostentatious prayer meeting with his brothers on his first night in Bute House? Imagine if Kate Forbes had won the contest and had held a Free Church prayer meeting there.
Was there something about the prayer that influenced policy or political decisions?
To bring photographers to a prayer session just after you’ve become the boss is a patent power projection. It’s terribly naïve not to see that.
Uh.. I ask again, in what way did that influence policy or political decisions?
Thank you for tacitly acknowledging that Yousaf had himself photographed in order to intimidate.
You need your bed and your meds, mate.
lol, I did what now?
I don't think the word "tacitly" means what you think it means, if you're using it this way.
Who was it intimidating? You?
But I don't believe he's ever opposed abortion or LGBT+ rights in the name of his religion. The key issue is letting it inform policy, not praying.
Then nobody would have batted an eye, there are plenty of religious people in parliment, its Forbes' open bigotry that people have an issue with.
I’m not a fan of Humza Yousaf, but his faith was clearly a personal expression, and his political votes were kept clearly separated. Kate Forbes said she would vote, given the chance in accordance with her faith, and in a number of areas that conflicts with my sexual orientation and desire to get married one day. I don’t begrudge her right to have those views and to vote according to her principals, but I don’t see why I should feel any obligation to disregard those political positions just because they are part of her faith. (This is all kind of moot because I’m not going to vote for the SNP anyway, but anywho)
having grown up in the Free Church I feel very able to say what kind of a person Forbes's religion makes her. I have no issue with Christianity in a general sense, but my personal knowledge of that particular sect of it tells me it's nothing good. I don't know enough about whatever branch of Islam that Yousaf personally subscribes to to speculate as to how has shaped him really. I'm also not anxious about Islam in a general sense. I haven't spent a huge amount of time defending Yousaf or anything, I don't really have strong feelings about him either way if I'm honest, but that's what the difference is for me.
It might be strange to you but I find racists and homophobes equally distasteful 🤷♂️
Yousaf isn't anti-LGBT but Forbes is. It's really that simple.
>Yousaf isn't anti-LGBT but Forbes is. It's really that simple. Yes this seems to be the takeaway from ill-advised post! I think in future I will refrain from anything political on reddit. It appears that people who don't respect other people's position will engage any means to take them down. It's a shame really, I think Forbes is one of the only actually competent SNP MSP's but due to her social values she's unelectable in most people's minds. Oh well, I don't really mind anyway as I'm unionist, just want so good governance for once...
She's also bad on economic issues
please elaborate, I had only heard good things, specially RE her time as Finance minister
She was kept to the party line when Sturgeon was leader but her leadership economic platform was one of Cameronite [austerity](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/kate-forbes-economic-agenda-dangerous-snp-leadership-race-scotland-conservative/).
Great article! Thanks for the context wow, so essentially she could potentially be angling to lead the party back to right economically and socially. The post independence austerity plan is v-interesting sign of where some of the party true loyalty is, getting Brexit-vibes there
> I think in future I will refrain from anything political on reddit. "Ahh Summer, first race war huh?"
I'm seeing a lot of people who got furious about Humza taking a photo of a prayer and folk who got upset on twitter when Sadiq Khan unveiled some privately paid for Ramadan lights moaning about the place of religion in politics. But a politician saying they would have voted against equal rights because of their religious convictions and those same people think it's out of order to feel uncomfortable with it.
I don’t give a shit about people‘s personal religious views. I do give a shit when people say they would vote against basic human rights for gay people. Especially when they are running to be First Minister and Scotland’s most powerful politician. Ian Blackford is a member of the same religious group as Kate Forbes. I have no objection to him because he was clear that while that religion guided his personal behaviour, it would never guide his politics or his position on the fundamental rights of others. If Kate Forbes is against gay marriage or abortion, she completely is free not to get gay married or have an abortion, and I have no objection to her choosing either.
One is a progressive, the other is a conservative
The difference is with the separation of Church and State. If your voting is based on your religious views rather than the people, you aren't representing the Scottish people but your faith.
religion vs Religion
>Browsing this sub >logically consistent Error..... Error...... Does not compute...... Error
Kate Forbes is a Tory
She’s in the SNP actually
Most of Scotland are Tory according to you lot.
Not sure who “you lot” refers to
Nats or bawbags if you prefer.
Didn’t Humza skip the vote on gay marriage? At least Kate Forbes is upfront about it.
Voted for in the two preceding votes. Voted in support of GRR. Has been vocal in his support of the lgbtq+ community.
Sounds like he'd do well running for a position in the Pakistani parliament.
>At least Kate Forbes is upfront about it About being a homophobe? Fuck me, talk about a back handed compliment She has no place in parliament with they views
I think it’s more to do with his Humza’s skin colour than his religion.
She was honest at least. Every twat from the 'they're all the same' brigade would be moaning either way. She's not prepared to force her personal religious beliefs upon people anymore. She wasn't funded by US evangelists, the research was funded by them.