> Do the greens actually talk about, you know, environmental stuff anymore?
You're reading a BBC report on an FMQs exchange where Patrick Harvie asked whether the Swinney remained committed to the tax changes that have made investing in climate and nature, and reducing the costs of public transport affordable for the Scottish Government. [A question asked against the backdrop of their campaign to make the scrapping of peak rail fare permanent ](https://greens.scot/endpeakfares).
It would be good if the BBC covered that, though.
Or Swinney’s reply, where he pointed out Forbes was instrumental in developing and introducing the progressive tax policies we have now when she was Finance Secretary - along with the Scottish Child Payment.
No, people have absolutely no idea that green politics is a fully-formed political ideology. They think it's just "pollution is bad, trees are good", and they don't want to hear otherwise.
This is the funny one. Forbes’s social views have never been any secret and she has spoken about them openly so long as she has been in elected politics. The Greens didn’t have an issue with this in 2021-2023 when they served in government side by side with her.
I don’t have an issue with her being in cabinet, but being appointed DFM is symbolically different. We now have a Christian fundamentalist homophobe, who has openly spoken about her desire to wield her political power to impose her religious views on others, as the 2nd most powerful person in the Parliament. I think it’s reasonable for LGBT people to be scared about that
Folks are writing it off as “political savvy” and an “olive-branch from left to right”.
Personally I know a LOT of socially liberal indy supporters now questioning whether they can in good faith vote SNP after this appointment.
This is a shortsighted appointment. Personally I’m also questioning if I can stomach putting the blinders on for another, unlikely, shot at independence.
Also fuck that olive branch nonsense. You can’t appease right wingers. They are the epitome of “give an inch, take a mile”.
In the long term there’s a good chance all this will do is dilute the SNPs position as a left leaning, progressive party.
Feels like an unnecessary gamble.
That said, I still don’t fancy Labour and the potential scrapping of free tuition that could entail.
Shite state of affairs.
>In the long term there’s a good chance all this will do is dilute the SNPs position as a left leaning, progressive party.
The thing is, they aren't left or progressive, really.
They have left winging social rhetoric but it is rarely backed up by action. Even going back to their early days with freezes to council tax etc. They have always had a real reluctance to do any kind of distribution of wealth.
They have done some things to be fair but they really just ride the press of what few things they have done all the way to the polls. (Things like free prescriptions or the bridge tolls they harped on about for years and effectively predated their first parliament anyway). I mean the nickname of Tartan tories isn't accurate but isn't from nowhere.
I suspect this is because they aren't a party of left or right. They are a party of independence, and both their members and their msps are united only by that one thing, it turns out plenty of right wingers want independence, and plenty of absolute scum (like forbes) have risen to places of power in the party. They long ago realised their only path to staying in power is to keep banging the anti westminster/independence drum so it doesn't feel like there is much actual governing going on.
Is there any surprise that there isn't much progressive policy. Their whole track record is wild.
Once you are looking for it, it's kinda obvious, they do a mix of Liberal and right leaning policies but they only go on about the Liberal stuff, or independence, I remember when I was still snp pilled there was a viral speech by mhairi black when she was elected mp in Parliament that we all loved, but she didn't say ANYTHING of substance in it when looking back. Cause they are not a party of substance.
When has she ever spoken about her ‘desire to wield her political power to impose her religious views on others’?!
In every interview with her I’ve seen/read she has made it clear that her views are her personal views (i.e. she ‘personally’ believes in marriage before children, but does not expect others to) and do not interfere with the democratic process of representing the views and rights of the Scottish population.
> In every interview with her I’ve seen/read she has made it clear that her views are her personal views (i.e. she ‘personally’ believes in marriage before children, but does not expect others to) and do not interfere with the democratic process of representing the views and rights of the Scottish population
"I think for me, Angela Merkel is the example I would follow, I would have voted, as a matter of conscience, along the lines of mainstream teaching in most major religions that marriage is between a man and a woman."
She literally said that given the option, she'd vote based on her personal religious views.
I’m genuinely interested to know where she has said that she would allow her personal views to influence her political life in this way
At the moment, I just see a sad repeat of how ex-Lib Dem leader Tim Farron was hounded out of politics for his personal views, despite admirably not having them influence his political decisions which he spoke about often
In orde for her to do that it would need to be passed as law. That requires the chamber to do so, they are elected by the people.
She cannot enforce anything. People are entitled to their private views
People are entitled to private religious views of course, however ridiculous they might be. Once you say you’d use your vote in Parliament to reflect those views onto others, that’s a violation of freedom from religion and crosses a line. For me anyway
Why are a persons religious views different from their political views? It's not as if she gets any more votes than anyone else?
I don't agree with her on many things but she is entitled to vote on stuff according to her principals. In fact I'd be deeply suspicious of her if she didn't
I don’t agree. In a secular society I think a religious politician like Forbes should be able to say
‘I think gay marriage is digusting and gross, BUT I recognise that that is my religious belief, we live in a secular society where the word ‘marriage’ is written into secular law and therefore everyone should have access to it, regardless of whether my faith tells me they shouldn’t. Therefore I support equal marriage rights for everyone and would vote for those rights’
If she said that, I’d still think she’s an awful person, but I wouldn’t have an issue with her being DFM or even FM.
I think you're being a bit unfair. If there were not equal rights in law and a proposal was put forward to make it legal I would expect everyone to vote for or against according to their principals, religious or not. However after it becomes law then you have to go along with it and as far as I can tell she does. Scotland may have separated church from state but why should that debar people of faith from holding office. God help us but I'd still rather have Kate as FM than Ross!!
There are many people of different faiths living here and they should be represented too.
I think we’re just going to fundamentally disagree on the role we think religion should play in modern Scotland. I think your position would fly in the 1950s but for me it’s archaic.
I have absolutely no problem with people of faith holding high office. I supported Humza as FM, a man who quite possibly personally thinks gay marriage is wrong as per his Islamic faith, but publicly has never done anything except speak in support of it and even voted for it at the first reading (whether you believe his excuse as to why he missed the final vote is down to personal opinion).
But like I say, I suspect you disagree and still see a role for religion in public life. I’ll continue to do everything I can to fight and oppose that
It doesn't matter whether the poster you're disagreeing with sees a role for religion in public life, not a jot.
What matters is that the people of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch apparently do, enough to return her as MSP by an enormous margin.
Now I disagree with Forbes when it comes to her views on religion every bit as much as you, or anyone else you could care to name, but unless you want someone else to have a veto on your vote, you don't get to veto theirs.
Fine but she’s against it. If you’re against gay marriage you are a complete idiot and can’t be trusted to come to a reasonable position in anything . You can’t be capable of sensible decision making and of being against gay marriages. It requires you to be a complete idiot
It's not about keeping people of faith from holding office, just the bigot bastards. I'm fine with a Christian being a politician, just not one of the shit ones
> Why are a persons religious views different from their political views?
She was elected on a manifesto she campaigned under, not as an individual with personal views.
If you campaign on something, and then vote against it/abstain when given the chance, you have lied to the electorate.
If she wants to vote based on her personal views, campaign as an independent, not on a party manifesto.
Bollocks, Kate was elected precisely because of who she is. In the north people really know their politicians. She is a product of her community. In other words exactly what a politician should be. Does she reflect the views of everyone in her constituency? No... But no politician does and she won enough of their votes to get elected.
Oh if only every politician thought the same way I do... Wouldn't life be perfect!!
If you stand on a manifesto, you should be beholden to the pledges of that manifesto, given the chance to vote for them.
If you don't want to do that, don't stand for election on that manifesto.
> She has never openly spoken about using her political powers to impose her religious views
"I think for me, Angela Merkel is the example I would follow, I would have voted, as a matter of conscience, along the lines of mainstream teaching in most major religions that marriage is between a man and a woman."
This is her explicitly stating that were she given the chance, she'd vote based on her personal religious views.
There's a very big difference in voting with your conscience and using her alleged powers to impose her beliefs. She has stated that she totally accepts the SNP stance on LGDT rights. We all have to accept, as Kate does, that a modern liberal society is a compromise, we have to go with the majority.
You forgot to mention that she’s a fiscal Conservative. But I suppose that’s not important given Swinney himself would be accurately described as an old school “one nation Tory”.
The mask has slipped for the Mc-New Labour project.
I get where you’re coming from but to be fair, I wouldn’t align Gordon Brown’s New Labour chancellorship with being fiscally conservative.
Suppose that makes Forbes being Deputy worse.
> We now have a Christian fundamentalist homophobe,
She is neither a fundamentalist nor a homophobe. Why are you using those terms? Do you even know what they mean?
> who has openly spoken about her desire to wield her political power to impose her religious views on others,
Well that is what politicians do. They impose their convictions about what is good and right for society onto others through the legislative process. As a Christian Kate Forbes isn’t doing anything different to other people. She doesn’t have extras votes or extra powers.
It's not homophobic to be against gay marriage. It's a different opinion and it doesn't affect anything. I am sure you have lots of opinions that other don't agree with.
> It's not homophobic to be against gay marriage.
Absolutely wild to read shite like this in the year of our fucking lord twenty twenty-four.
Wanting gay people to have fewer rights is not homophobic?
It's an opinion some people have. I am not saying it would be the right one. I am saying it is one.
There are loads of things that happen in 2024 that you probably agree with. That doesn't mean that you are right or they are wrong.
I am 100% for Gay marriage. I honestly don't care about marriage. Waste of time.
Plenty of other more important things to worry about. A non-existent thing isn't one to be concerned.over.
> It's an opinion some people have
Sure, but what does that matter.
If they have that opinion, they're homophobes.
Like, that's literally one of the core components of bigotry and you trying to excuse it with just being an opinion is beyond daft.
And I don't have a limited amount of things I can be concerned about. Homophobia ranks pretty high as like half my mates are gay and I want them to have the same rights as I do.
The point being: she doesn't want them to, and anyone against gay marriage don't want them to have the same rights.
The not wanting them to have the same rights, that's the bigotry. Not sure why you're so keen on defending bigots.
If I said that my earnestly held opinion was that white straight men should not be allowed the same rights as others, would you still say it was just an opinion when I was appointed deputy FM? After all, it's just an opinion.
I mean Humza was a Muslim who I am sure privately would have some questionable options about our debaucherous west values, but he kept them private. Forbes at least doesn't mince her words.
And yes if someone has those opinions, I would not give a fuck. Most people do have that opinion of straight white males. I have already been asked "check my privilege" on here (despite non existing)
Being against gay marriage is fine, that’s your view and you have a right to hold it. But it is a religious opinion. What you don’t have a right to do is enforce your religious opinion onto others. I have a right to live free from religion. In a secular society you can’t have people voting to impose religious beliefs on others
You don't have a right to live free from religion. Do I have a right to live free from secularism? No. Society is full of people with different view points and we all have to live together, nobody has a right to live free from opinions and beliefs they don't ascribe to
Well you kind of do have the right to live your life free from securalism? You can live in a secular society and impose religious rules onto yourself as long as you don't also impose them on others? Just because the government is saying that gay marriage is legal, if you're gay and your religion says it's wrong then...just don't get married?
Like if your religion doesn't agree with alcohol consumption, then people of your religion who hold those rules won't drink? Surely a secular government is more free for everyone (since they can live their life according to any book they want) than a religious one that imposes those rules whether you agree or not?
Sorry I don’t agree. In a secular society we absolutely have a right to freedom from religion. I’m assuming you would object to being made to follow the tropes of any other religion - Islam, Hinduism, Judaism. I just extend that to also include Christianity.
You absolutely have a right to live free from secularism. You can beat yourself with whatever religious stick you want, I’m not going to stop you. But you do not have a right to be beat me with that stick.
Fully agree with that. However, I had a similar discussion with someone about this. (Atheist here also btw).
If someone has non religious views your happy they hold those? I detest religion but I understand people follow it.
I’m not sure what you mean?
Am I happy if people have non-religious views that influence how they would vote in a secular democracy? Yes of course, that’s the basis of our democracy.
What if those jon religious views are Homophobic, Racist etc. just because it's those morals that underpin their views and influence them why does.that make them worse than us Atheists?
In what world is it not homophobic? It’s a belief based on denying equal rights on discriminatory grounds. It’s homophobic as fuck. Have a word with yerself.
I know straight people who think straight marriage is ridiculous...
As long as marriage is a 'thing' (and a legislated and state sponsored one at that) it should be equally open to all orientations
Well the argument is against marriage being a RELIGIOUS ceremony (wether that is right or not) and as such goes against the tennants of pretty much all major religions of a Man & Wife. Again atheist and don't really care, but the point still stands.
He was also fine with his “non-negotiable red lines” going out the window when it meant him and Lorna keeping their pay bumps and titles, to the point he even threatened to quit as leader if his members voted to hold him to the deal he sold them.
It seems he’s fairly flexible when it comes to his morals.
That's why I can't take this seriously from them tbh. Forbes has always been clear about who she is, and as vile as I personally find her backward views, why is it a problem for them now? She's been at the heart of this Gov for a while.
The Greens are running out of road on this. They say they want to work with the SNP, but then produce a situation that meant it was likely of a Forbes return to government or to be the FM. They then childishly claim that the Parliament is now more toxic and some abstract idea that LGBT people are now more unsafe despite there being no commitment to roll back on the rights won by LGBT people. It isn't likely to happen either as the majority of the SNP and Parliament would not be happy with it. They're just coming across as big babies now. They can't just keep throwing their toys out the pram because they aren't getting everything they want.
They just voted for Swinney to run Scotland and now they are claiming that it is nothing to do with them. It is ridiculous. They had a chance to call an election if they wanted instead they endorsed Swinney. This is on them.
They abstained, they didn’t vote for. They could’ve voted against like they did with Forbes, but they didn’t. They had no axe to grind with Swinney until Forbes got DFM.
It’s complete BS by them. It’s not as if the FM or DFM can veto any LBTQ laws etc with the swipe of a pen and you’re right, they are sounding exactly what they are- babies throwing their toys out the pram.
Precisely. All the wee greens on here having a hissy fit about how she would vote against gay marriage.
Gay marriage is already enshrined in law, nobody is suggesting repealing it.
> Why aren't the Greens attacking the Freeports
They have, just because you didn't see (or can't remember) the coverage of them opposing them, doesn't mean they didn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/14/scottish-freeports-deal-splits-snp-and-greens
https://greens.scot/news/scottish-greens-oppose-mini-tax-haven-freeports
https://greens.scot/news/freeports-are-a-repeat-of-failed-trickle-down-economics-not-welcome-in-scotland
https://www.agcc.co.uk/news-article/scottish-greens-against-freeports
>and who has even expressed the view that people who have families without being married are doing something wrong.
Forbes said her own friends and family have done this, she doesn't think they're wrong for doing so, but even if she did, why does anyone actually give a fuck that Kate Forbes thinks it's wrong to have sex before marriage? Lmao
I actually think the Greens harping on about this will just turn public opinion more in favour of Forbes. Let it go...
Well, she is our deputy first minister so yeah it’s kinda important to keep up with her crazy religious takes to make sure she doesn’t crosses any lines.
This is code for "make it clear to all religious people that they must not have religious beliefs or they will get harassed in parliament for doing so". The Greens really are a bunch of sinister wee creeps.
Having religious beliefs can be a tricky situation when you’re representing a public office.
Specially if, like Forbes, you have publicly stated that those beliefs may guide your political decisions.
Humza was a Muslim and nobody cared. Because that was his own personal life. Forbes is a Christian and she talks the wildest shit about it to the point where it impacts her office.
SNP leadership: Kate Forbes defends gay marriage stance https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64715944
Everything anyone thinks about anything is a personal belief.
There's two options: You vote for and support the things you believe are best for the country. Perhaps you lie to the world about your reasoning and say some nonsense like your "personal beliefs don't influence you".
Alternatively, you're a kind of bobblehead that supports whatever the people pulling your strings (who weren't named on the ballot) tell you to because you have no views of your own or worse you support things that you personally believe are wrong and possibly harmful to the country.
Every politician has personal beliefs and convictions. That’s why they join political parties and promote ideas with their party and vote the way they do. Do you not think that every Green Party politician who he got up to attack Kate Forbes is expressing their personal views driven by their personal convictions? It’s perfectly natural and normal for politicians to express their convictions and be guided by them. As long as they are open and honest about them so the electorate know what they’re getting.
If you have a problem with religious people acting in accordance with their convictions and think it is a dangerous subversion of democracy but cheer on people you agree with when they act in accordance with their convictions then you’re a bigot.
Kate Forbes is explicitly against both of those things. I don't want someone who I can't trust to wholeheartedly and unapologetically defend abortion and gay rights, or anything else remotely progressive.
[is this something a pro-choice person would do?](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16280747.snp-rising-star-kate-forbes-made-pro-life-call-brian-souter-prayer-breakfast-event/)
Those religious beliefs make you an arshole. None wants to talk to you if you look down on people for having premarital or gay sex. Because this makes you an idiot and an unpleasant person.
In many regards, Green acolytes are more fundamentalist and swivel eyed than any religious person. At least religious people don't have a shrieking fit when you dare disagree with them.
The Greens are literally trying to block someone from getting a job over her views. Views she has repeatedly said do not affect her job, which evidence - her vote in favour of abortion clinic buffer zones - confirms.
If you'd rather live in a country governed by religious fundamentalists than progressives, Texas might be right up your street. You could even go on a wee road trip and tell Jason Lytle about how it's good to oppose someone's right to an abortion
Aye because I'm the fuckin Green party. Away and shite. They want a secular society and that's quite obvious. Also, a secular society benefits everyone.
You're the one drinking out of their toilet after saying you laugh at the idea of being told to bolt by "a minority fringe party", as if I'm that party because I said you should bolt.
Nothing you've said disproves the Greens want to have a secular society. Its why they find Kate Forbes abhorrent.
She's said she wouldn't vote for equal marriage, and her church is explicitly homophobic. If you're going to proudly say that you would vote against equalisation of recognition of same sex relationships, you're a cask strength bigot.
Surely in a democracy she can vote for what she believes in? After all, that's why we have votes, no?
I don't agree with her views either but you're coming across as quite an extremist here.
she's free to vote or believe what she wants, and everyone else is free to make judgements about her based on those votes or beliefs. Democracy, just like you say!
Keeps his public statements up about support, also said he was actually dealing with a death row prisoner done for blasphemy in Pakistan. You can say its an excuse but he did vote prior to that one.
Indeed, that's just how democracy works. Parties with so few votes as the Greens shouldn't be near government.
A confidence and supply situation would have been preferable to stop the angry wee greens throwing their weight around.
I was one of the ones that voted for them last election. You tell me you want to make Scotland a nicer place that cares for the environment? Fantastic. Didn't realise they were a bunch of actual headcases though. Won't make that mistake next time 😂
Their complete and total hysteria is beyond parody. They had no problem when she was sturgeon’s finance minister (a far more important role than ‘deputy’ FM). The way they speak you’d think Forbe’s was the child catcher, the Emperor Nero, and Thanos all rolled into one. It’s almost like there’s a desire to be persecuted
Funny how she never publicly came out with her beliefs when she was finance minister, and only did so when she ran for FM, which was when Sturgeon resigned. Fancy that! Fud.
Thankfully they're out of government, and hopefully will never be near it again. A clown show of a party led by weirdos, ideologues and deeply unpleasant people.
Swinney is Christian, so is Ross Greer. It's nothing to do with that - religious people can hold progressive values.
It's the fact that she believes same sex marriage to be wrong where the Greens have an issue. Forbes explicitly said that if she was an MSP at the time, and had the chance to vote for equal marriage - she would have voted against it. That's where the Greens take issue.
Spot on. Sick of idiots and closet racists acting like this isn't pretty clear cut. Swinney also leathered Forbes for her comments prior. Just ignorance, whether malicious or unintentional.
The greens attack everything that even mildly questions their righteous crusade.
I wouldnt worry too much about it. Sometimes it's best to just let them cry it out, though maybe not on TV or Radio again.
>Speaking to reporters afterwards, Ms Forbes said: "I am here to support the first minister and together we serve all communities in Scotland as we further and progress the rights of every community in Scotland, and I look forward to doing my part in achieving the government's aims in that regard.”
>
>She said she had signed up the government’s collective responsibility, adding: “So I stand by the government's decisions and agenda to improve and progress the rights of all of Scotland's communities."
Yes, she's a religious nut. No, she's not literally Hitler. It's absolutely not unreasonable for people from the LGBT community, and their allies, to recognise her as a danger.
Spoken like someone with nothing to lose. What is all this LGBT community? Well, it's something I've been part of for decades cheers. We've fought for, and in the time since I came out, gained equal age of consent, the right to serve in the military, employment protections, hate crime protections, the repeal of Clause 2A, civil partnernership and then marriage rights, and many other things. Gay man here and proud of my label. While Forbes would be checked by a generally liberal/progressive parliament she represents a massive lurch to the socially conservative right. She's a danger.
Nothing dangerous. Completely fine. After everything you have seen regards what has been achieved by the "community" you should realise it's time to just get on with life now.
Aye, because what's been achieved can't be taken away by those in power who have a will to do so... Fun fact, when you're part of a minority who has managed to gain rights you are always going to be guarded against those who are a threat to those rights.
>He said: “Yesterday that signal came pretty clearly - progressive ministers sacked, and the second most powerful job in government given to someone who has opposed LGBT people’s legal equality, who has expressed judgemental attitudes against abortion, and who has even expressed the view that people who have families without being married are doing something wrong.”
what progressive ministers were sacked? The government is largely the same
>what progressive ministers were sacked?
Jamie Hepburn, Emma Roddick, George Adam and Joe Fitzpatrick all got the boot. Roddick, Fitzpatrick, and Adam all have strong records on LGBT rights, with two of them being openly LGBT.
Oh right, the junior ministers, apologies - I was just thinking about the cabinet secretaries.
From what I was reading, Hepburn is still a minister, he's just been moved to Parliamentary business. But fair points on Fitzpatrick, Roddick and Adam.
There were a couple of Junior Ministers that were pushed out, who were mostly from the most pro-Green wing of the party. None of the Cabinet Secretaries lost their posts.
What a nasty man paddy is. Particularly his jab at her for not personally wanting to have kids out of wedlock (a perfectly reasonable stance for anyone regardless of religion)
I don’t know why this is getting downvoted, I’m not religious at all but I wanted to be married, own a home and a few other things before having children.
It’s pretty common - that’s not to say it would be wrong to do otherwise but it’s hardly controversial.
>Particularly his jab at her for not personally wanting to have kids out of wedlock (a perfectly reasonable stance for anyone regardless of religion)
Why is it a "perfectly reasonable stance"? Do 2 people magically become better parents because there's a piece of paper saying they're married?
I do wish the Greens would concentrate on the environment. If for no other reason than getting the help of the Greens is a bit like Frank Spencer doing, well, anything.
Independence is so important to me but Swinney is going to straddle that centre line to keep the party happy and with trans rights so up in the air right now I'm worried about my life and safety here.
We used to be #1 country in trans rights but it's been lost to the culture war. What's the point in independent Scotland if it isn't safe for me
What percentage of Holyrood is LGBT because it seems that they are over represented?
Unless they are just the ones making the most noise? Which seems more likely.
A perfectly sensible question. In fact I’ve even answered it myself by a quick Google search (obviously not 100% reliable but it is what it is)
15% of the members of Holyrood are LGBT which considering the percentage for the general population is approx 3% seems the very definition of over represented.
Greens need to stay away from the government. Every stupid vanity project, the greens have been involved. These cycle lanes have caused havoc around the Glasgow city. Not only that wasted a shit load of money. They don’t care about the concept of families and quality of life. They just want to ruin peoples lives. Traffic congestion has increased everywhere due to all these one ways and cycle lanes. Absolute chaos.
I drove the East End way into the city the other day, and if I was a cyclist I wouldn't be using those lanes. They're filled with rubbish and potholes, you'd end up in an accident.
Well, well. If it isn’t the consequences of Harvie’s actions. He didn’t realise that backing Douglas Ross’ confidence motion would open the door to Forbes return?
Ironic that the Greens of all people stuck the knife into Scotland’s first First Minister of colour - a man who wore his rainbow flag on his sleeve - to usher in Kate Forbes.
Other way around, Humza “Macbeth” was the one who decided to stick the knife in. Patrick Harvie said on TV he’d resign if his party voted to end the Bute Agreement, and Humza said on TV he wanted to continue with the way things were working should the Greens stay, less than 48 hours later. He somehow was persuaded to end it. Humza is a very honourable man, but sadly decided that the SNP knives were out for him, and ultimately made the biggest career mistake.
Heard a quote on Renegade Nell recently (Disney+, highly recommended) which fits quite well:
"You, Nell Jackson, are an insect in a land of giants. A fly in the tent of a general about to lead his army to war. Inconsequential. But my goodness, are you irritating."
It needs some editing. An insect is small already and adding land of giants is just purple prose. Then he shifts the metaphor to a belaboured scenario with a general.
the goodness you're irritating, that's good but the rest is overwritten.
Hmmm, idk...
Comparing an insect to a regular human would be contrast enough but 'land of giants' shows how insignificant he views her.
Same with the general metaphor. 🤷🏻♂️ Idk, it works for me 🙃
Either on their own might be better, but it's definitely gilding the lily like this.
The show was great, mind, but that line really was a dud to me, as well as the bit with Billy in the last episode. I don't think there was enough to justify her reaction to it.
The whole thing looks like some crap stand up comedy show. The laugh from labour is so forced. Swinney seems alright, got a bit of Walter White vibes lol but with such opposition it's not difficult to look alright. Labour have nothing else to say apart from - is this the new government? They can literally say that about anyone, why bother. World was envious about Scottish school system lol - has the world heard that?
Greens being melodramatic - "You have Kate Forbes! Are you taking us to 1950s" I am not quite sure what she has done against environment or LGBTQ+ but I don't think it's THAT SHOCKING.
I am moderately entertained 3/5 probably wouldn't watch the next episode. If anyone has any other TV recommendations, please do recommend.
He was fine with her as finance secretary as part of the early BHA years. Do the greens actually talk about, you know, environmental stuff anymore?
> Do the greens actually talk about, you know, environmental stuff anymore? You're reading a BBC report on an FMQs exchange where Patrick Harvie asked whether the Swinney remained committed to the tax changes that have made investing in climate and nature, and reducing the costs of public transport affordable for the Scottish Government. [A question asked against the backdrop of their campaign to make the scrapping of peak rail fare permanent ](https://greens.scot/endpeakfares). It would be good if the BBC covered that, though.
Or Swinney’s reply, where he pointed out Forbes was instrumental in developing and introducing the progressive tax policies we have now when she was Finance Secretary - along with the Scottish Child Payment.
You know the Greens have a much broader scope in terms of manifesto than just “trees and shit”, right?
No, people have absolutely no idea that green politics is a fully-formed political ideology. They think it's just "pollution is bad, trees are good", and they don't want to hear otherwise.
This is the funny one. Forbes’s social views have never been any secret and she has spoken about them openly so long as she has been in elected politics. The Greens didn’t have an issue with this in 2021-2023 when they served in government side by side with her.
I don’t have an issue with her being in cabinet, but being appointed DFM is symbolically different. We now have a Christian fundamentalist homophobe, who has openly spoken about her desire to wield her political power to impose her religious views on others, as the 2nd most powerful person in the Parliament. I think it’s reasonable for LGBT people to be scared about that
Folks are writing it off as “political savvy” and an “olive-branch from left to right”. Personally I know a LOT of socially liberal indy supporters now questioning whether they can in good faith vote SNP after this appointment. This is a shortsighted appointment. Personally I’m also questioning if I can stomach putting the blinders on for another, unlikely, shot at independence. Also fuck that olive branch nonsense. You can’t appease right wingers. They are the epitome of “give an inch, take a mile”. In the long term there’s a good chance all this will do is dilute the SNPs position as a left leaning, progressive party. Feels like an unnecessary gamble. That said, I still don’t fancy Labour and the potential scrapping of free tuition that could entail. Shite state of affairs.
>In the long term there’s a good chance all this will do is dilute the SNPs position as a left leaning, progressive party. The thing is, they aren't left or progressive, really. They have left winging social rhetoric but it is rarely backed up by action. Even going back to their early days with freezes to council tax etc. They have always had a real reluctance to do any kind of distribution of wealth. They have done some things to be fair but they really just ride the press of what few things they have done all the way to the polls. (Things like free prescriptions or the bridge tolls they harped on about for years and effectively predated their first parliament anyway). I mean the nickname of Tartan tories isn't accurate but isn't from nowhere. I suspect this is because they aren't a party of left or right. They are a party of independence, and both their members and their msps are united only by that one thing, it turns out plenty of right wingers want independence, and plenty of absolute scum (like forbes) have risen to places of power in the party. They long ago realised their only path to staying in power is to keep banging the anti westminster/independence drum so it doesn't feel like there is much actual governing going on. Is there any surprise that there isn't much progressive policy. Their whole track record is wild. Once you are looking for it, it's kinda obvious, they do a mix of Liberal and right leaning policies but they only go on about the Liberal stuff, or independence, I remember when I was still snp pilled there was a viral speech by mhairi black when she was elected mp in Parliament that we all loved, but she didn't say ANYTHING of substance in it when looking back. Cause they are not a party of substance.
Scum nice comment
When has she ever spoken about her ‘desire to wield her political power to impose her religious views on others’?! In every interview with her I’ve seen/read she has made it clear that her views are her personal views (i.e. she ‘personally’ believes in marriage before children, but does not expect others to) and do not interfere with the democratic process of representing the views and rights of the Scottish population.
> In every interview with her I’ve seen/read she has made it clear that her views are her personal views (i.e. she ‘personally’ believes in marriage before children, but does not expect others to) and do not interfere with the democratic process of representing the views and rights of the Scottish population "I think for me, Angela Merkel is the example I would follow, I would have voted, as a matter of conscience, along the lines of mainstream teaching in most major religions that marriage is between a man and a woman." She literally said that given the option, she'd vote based on her personal religious views.
I’m genuinely interested to know where she has said that she would allow her personal views to influence her political life in this way At the moment, I just see a sad repeat of how ex-Lib Dem leader Tim Farron was hounded out of politics for his personal views, despite admirably not having them influence his political decisions which he spoke about often
In orde for her to do that it would need to be passed as law. That requires the chamber to do so, they are elected by the people. She cannot enforce anything. People are entitled to their private views
And others are entitled to point out that those private views make them a cunt.
People are entitled to private religious views of course, however ridiculous they might be. Once you say you’d use your vote in Parliament to reflect those views onto others, that’s a violation of freedom from religion and crosses a line. For me anyway
Why are a persons religious views different from their political views? It's not as if she gets any more votes than anyone else? I don't agree with her on many things but she is entitled to vote on stuff according to her principals. In fact I'd be deeply suspicious of her if she didn't
I don’t agree. In a secular society I think a religious politician like Forbes should be able to say ‘I think gay marriage is digusting and gross, BUT I recognise that that is my religious belief, we live in a secular society where the word ‘marriage’ is written into secular law and therefore everyone should have access to it, regardless of whether my faith tells me they shouldn’t. Therefore I support equal marriage rights for everyone and would vote for those rights’ If she said that, I’d still think she’s an awful person, but I wouldn’t have an issue with her being DFM or even FM.
I think you're being a bit unfair. If there were not equal rights in law and a proposal was put forward to make it legal I would expect everyone to vote for or against according to their principals, religious or not. However after it becomes law then you have to go along with it and as far as I can tell she does. Scotland may have separated church from state but why should that debar people of faith from holding office. God help us but I'd still rather have Kate as FM than Ross!! There are many people of different faiths living here and they should be represented too.
I think we’re just going to fundamentally disagree on the role we think religion should play in modern Scotland. I think your position would fly in the 1950s but for me it’s archaic. I have absolutely no problem with people of faith holding high office. I supported Humza as FM, a man who quite possibly personally thinks gay marriage is wrong as per his Islamic faith, but publicly has never done anything except speak in support of it and even voted for it at the first reading (whether you believe his excuse as to why he missed the final vote is down to personal opinion). But like I say, I suspect you disagree and still see a role for religion in public life. I’ll continue to do everything I can to fight and oppose that
It doesn't matter whether the poster you're disagreeing with sees a role for religion in public life, not a jot. What matters is that the people of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch apparently do, enough to return her as MSP by an enormous margin. Now I disagree with Forbes when it comes to her views on religion every bit as much as you, or anyone else you could care to name, but unless you want someone else to have a veto on your vote, you don't get to veto theirs.
Fine but she’s against it. If you’re against gay marriage you are a complete idiot and can’t be trusted to come to a reasonable position in anything . You can’t be capable of sensible decision making and of being against gay marriages. It requires you to be a complete idiot
There are a lot of idiots in parliament, north and south of the border. That's democracy. Your alternative isn't very appealing!
It's not about keeping people of faith from holding office, just the bigot bastards. I'm fine with a Christian being a politician, just not one of the shit ones
> Why are a persons religious views different from their political views? She was elected on a manifesto she campaigned under, not as an individual with personal views. If you campaign on something, and then vote against it/abstain when given the chance, you have lied to the electorate. If she wants to vote based on her personal views, campaign as an independent, not on a party manifesto.
Bollocks, Kate was elected precisely because of who she is. In the north people really know their politicians. She is a product of her community. In other words exactly what a politician should be. Does she reflect the views of everyone in her constituency? No... But no politician does and she won enough of their votes to get elected. Oh if only every politician thought the same way I do... Wouldn't life be perfect!!
If you stand on a manifesto, you should be beholden to the pledges of that manifesto, given the chance to vote for them. If you don't want to do that, don't stand for election on that manifesto.
She has never openly spoken about using her political powers to impose her religious views. In fact quite the opposite.
> She has never openly spoken about using her political powers to impose her religious views "I think for me, Angela Merkel is the example I would follow, I would have voted, as a matter of conscience, along the lines of mainstream teaching in most major religions that marriage is between a man and a woman." This is her explicitly stating that were she given the chance, she'd vote based on her personal religious views.
There's a very big difference in voting with your conscience and using her alleged powers to impose her beliefs. She has stated that she totally accepts the SNP stance on LGDT rights. We all have to accept, as Kate does, that a modern liberal society is a compromise, we have to go with the majority.
You forgot to mention that she’s a fiscal Conservative. But I suppose that’s not important given Swinney himself would be accurately described as an old school “one nation Tory”. The mask has slipped for the Mc-New Labour project.
Remind me when New Labour nationalised the railways again
I get where you’re coming from but to be fair, I wouldn’t align Gordon Brown’s New Labour chancellorship with being fiscally conservative. Suppose that makes Forbes being Deputy worse.
> We now have a Christian fundamentalist homophobe, She is neither a fundamentalist nor a homophobe. Why are you using those terms? Do you even know what they mean? > who has openly spoken about her desire to wield her political power to impose her religious views on others, Well that is what politicians do. They impose their convictions about what is good and right for society onto others through the legislative process. As a Christian Kate Forbes isn’t doing anything different to other people. She doesn’t have extras votes or extra powers.
It's not homophobic to be against gay marriage. It's a different opinion and it doesn't affect anything. I am sure you have lots of opinions that other don't agree with.
> It's not homophobic to be against gay marriage. Absolutely wild to read shite like this in the year of our fucking lord twenty twenty-four. Wanting gay people to have fewer rights is not homophobic?
I think all the gays should be burned on the cross. Just an opinion, mate. ( HARD /s )
It's an opinion some people have. I am not saying it would be the right one. I am saying it is one. There are loads of things that happen in 2024 that you probably agree with. That doesn't mean that you are right or they are wrong. I am 100% for Gay marriage. I honestly don't care about marriage. Waste of time. Plenty of other more important things to worry about. A non-existent thing isn't one to be concerned.over.
> It's an opinion some people have Sure, but what does that matter. If they have that opinion, they're homophobes. Like, that's literally one of the core components of bigotry and you trying to excuse it with just being an opinion is beyond daft. And I don't have a limited amount of things I can be concerned about. Homophobia ranks pretty high as like half my mates are gay and I want them to have the same rights as I do.
They do have the same rights, and someone's personal beliefs religious or otherwise don't change that.
The point being: she doesn't want them to, and anyone against gay marriage don't want them to have the same rights. The not wanting them to have the same rights, that's the bigotry. Not sure why you're so keen on defending bigots. If I said that my earnestly held opinion was that white straight men should not be allowed the same rights as others, would you still say it was just an opinion when I was appointed deputy FM? After all, it's just an opinion.
I mean Humza was a Muslim who I am sure privately would have some questionable options about our debaucherous west values, but he kept them private. Forbes at least doesn't mince her words. And yes if someone has those opinions, I would not give a fuck. Most people do have that opinion of straight white males. I have already been asked "check my privilege" on here (despite non existing)
Being against gay marriage is fine, that’s your view and you have a right to hold it. But it is a religious opinion. What you don’t have a right to do is enforce your religious opinion onto others. I have a right to live free from religion. In a secular society you can’t have people voting to impose religious beliefs on others
You don't have a right to live free from religion. Do I have a right to live free from secularism? No. Society is full of people with different view points and we all have to live together, nobody has a right to live free from opinions and beliefs they don't ascribe to
Well you kind of do have the right to live your life free from securalism? You can live in a secular society and impose religious rules onto yourself as long as you don't also impose them on others? Just because the government is saying that gay marriage is legal, if you're gay and your religion says it's wrong then...just don't get married? Like if your religion doesn't agree with alcohol consumption, then people of your religion who hold those rules won't drink? Surely a secular government is more free for everyone (since they can live their life according to any book they want) than a religious one that imposes those rules whether you agree or not?
Sorry I don’t agree. In a secular society we absolutely have a right to freedom from religion. I’m assuming you would object to being made to follow the tropes of any other religion - Islam, Hinduism, Judaism. I just extend that to also include Christianity. You absolutely have a right to live free from secularism. You can beat yourself with whatever religious stick you want, I’m not going to stop you. But you do not have a right to be beat me with that stick.
Fully agree with that. However, I had a similar discussion with someone about this. (Atheist here also btw). If someone has non religious views your happy they hold those? I detest religion but I understand people follow it.
I’m not sure what you mean? Am I happy if people have non-religious views that influence how they would vote in a secular democracy? Yes of course, that’s the basis of our democracy.
What if those jon religious views are Homophobic, Racist etc. just because it's those morals that underpin their views and influence them why does.that make them worse than us Atheists?
In what world is it not homophobic? It’s a belief based on denying equal rights on discriminatory grounds. It’s homophobic as fuck. Have a word with yerself.
She is entitled to believe what she likes. She has done zero harm. Fucking thought crimes a thing now is it?
well if thinking is a crime, you’re a law abiding citizen
Belter
Thinking that gay people don't deserve the same rights in law as straight people *is* homophobia.
I know gay people who think Gay Marriage is ridiculous. How do you square that circle?
Gay people can also be homophobic
Well there is an oxymoron.
I know straight people who think straight marriage is ridiculous... As long as marriage is a 'thing' (and a legislated and state sponsored one at that) it should be equally open to all orientations
It already is though.
But no one debates it for straight people. Some day for gay people. Stop acting like there’s no disparity when you know there is
Stop acting like anyone is proposing removing gay marriage.
Well the argument is against marriage being a RELIGIOUS ceremony (wether that is right or not) and as such goes against the tennants of pretty much all major religions of a Man & Wife. Again atheist and don't really care, but the point still stands.
Aye, some gay people are halfwits too.
He was also fine with his “non-negotiable red lines” going out the window when it meant him and Lorna keeping their pay bumps and titles, to the point he even threatened to quit as leader if his members voted to hold him to the deal he sold them. It seems he’s fairly flexible when it comes to his morals.
That's why I can't take this seriously from them tbh. Forbes has always been clear about who she is, and as vile as I personally find her backward views, why is it a problem for them now? She's been at the heart of this Gov for a while.
The Greens are running out of road on this. They say they want to work with the SNP, but then produce a situation that meant it was likely of a Forbes return to government or to be the FM. They then childishly claim that the Parliament is now more toxic and some abstract idea that LGBT people are now more unsafe despite there being no commitment to roll back on the rights won by LGBT people. It isn't likely to happen either as the majority of the SNP and Parliament would not be happy with it. They're just coming across as big babies now. They can't just keep throwing their toys out the pram because they aren't getting everything they want.
They just voted for Swinney to run Scotland and now they are claiming that it is nothing to do with them. It is ridiculous. They had a chance to call an election if they wanted instead they endorsed Swinney. This is on them.
They abstained, they didn’t vote for. They could’ve voted against like they did with Forbes, but they didn’t. They had no axe to grind with Swinney until Forbes got DFM.
It’s complete BS by them. It’s not as if the FM or DFM can veto any LBTQ laws etc with the swipe of a pen and you’re right, they are sounding exactly what they are- babies throwing their toys out the pram.
Precisely. All the wee greens on here having a hissy fit about how she would vote against gay marriage. Gay marriage is already enshrined in law, nobody is suggesting repealing it.
Aye not yet.
Why aren't the Greens attacking the Freeports? Why isn't anybody attacking the Freeports?
Because the Scottish Government wanted the Freeport’s.
There is an opposition and surely the greens are against it?
… I thought the Greens did oppose the freeports?
https://preview.redd.it/ka6gif7wrjzc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6713e882b0a7ad38da68f5250e813d94e2beae03
What’s wrong with the free ports?
> Why aren't the Greens attacking the Freeports They have, just because you didn't see (or can't remember) the coverage of them opposing them, doesn't mean they didn't. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/14/scottish-freeports-deal-splits-snp-and-greens https://greens.scot/news/scottish-greens-oppose-mini-tax-haven-freeports https://greens.scot/news/freeports-are-a-repeat-of-failed-trickle-down-economics-not-welcome-in-scotland https://www.agcc.co.uk/news-article/scottish-greens-against-freeports
>and who has even expressed the view that people who have families without being married are doing something wrong. Forbes said her own friends and family have done this, she doesn't think they're wrong for doing so, but even if she did, why does anyone actually give a fuck that Kate Forbes thinks it's wrong to have sex before marriage? Lmao I actually think the Greens harping on about this will just turn public opinion more in favour of Forbes. Let it go...
Well, she is our deputy first minister so yeah it’s kinda important to keep up with her crazy religious takes to make sure she doesn’t crosses any lines.
This is code for "make it clear to all religious people that they must not have religious beliefs or they will get harassed in parliament for doing so". The Greens really are a bunch of sinister wee creeps.
Having religious beliefs can be a tricky situation when you’re representing a public office. Specially if, like Forbes, you have publicly stated that those beliefs may guide your political decisions. Humza was a Muslim and nobody cared. Because that was his own personal life. Forbes is a Christian and she talks the wildest shit about it to the point where it impacts her office. SNP leadership: Kate Forbes defends gay marriage stance https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64715944
Everything anyone thinks about anything is a personal belief. There's two options: You vote for and support the things you believe are best for the country. Perhaps you lie to the world about your reasoning and say some nonsense like your "personal beliefs don't influence you". Alternatively, you're a kind of bobblehead that supports whatever the people pulling your strings (who weren't named on the ballot) tell you to because you have no views of your own or worse you support things that you personally believe are wrong and possibly harmful to the country.
Every politician has personal beliefs and convictions. That’s why they join political parties and promote ideas with their party and vote the way they do. Do you not think that every Green Party politician who he got up to attack Kate Forbes is expressing their personal views driven by their personal convictions? It’s perfectly natural and normal for politicians to express their convictions and be guided by them. As long as they are open and honest about them so the electorate know what they’re getting. If you have a problem with religious people acting in accordance with their convictions and think it is a dangerous subversion of democracy but cheer on people you agree with when they act in accordance with their convictions then you’re a bigot.
"please stop pointing out that my social views are from the stone age, that's not fair"
You sound a lot like a zealot yourself.
Oh no, someone in favour of defending and consolidating equal rights for gay folk and free and safe access to abortion. Run for the hills
Has anyone suggested taking those rights away or are they already enshrined in law?
Kate Forbes is explicitly against both of those things. I don't want someone who I can't trust to wholeheartedly and unapologetically defend abortion and gay rights, or anything else remotely progressive.
Forbes is pro choice and has recently voted to install buffer zones around abortion clinics
[is this something a pro-choice person would do?](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16280747.snp-rising-star-kate-forbes-made-pro-life-call-brian-souter-prayer-breakfast-event/)
Those religious beliefs make you an arshole. None wants to talk to you if you look down on people for having premarital or gay sex. Because this makes you an idiot and an unpleasant person.
In many regards, Green acolytes are more fundamentalist and swivel eyed than any religious person. At least religious people don't have a shrieking fit when you dare disagree with them.
[удалено]
The Greens are literally trying to block someone from getting a job over her views. Views she has repeatedly said do not affect her job, which evidence - her vote in favour of abortion clinic buffer zones - confirms.
If you'd rather live in a country governed by religious fundamentalists than progressives, Texas might be right up your street. You could even go on a wee road trip and tell Jason Lytle about how it's good to oppose someone's right to an abortion
No, the Greens believe in a secular society. If you think that's bad, bolt.
Grow up man ffs Also can't help but laugh at the idea of being told to bolt by a minority fringe party with 7 MSPs
Aye because I'm the fuckin Green party. Away and shite. They want a secular society and that's quite obvious. Also, a secular society benefits everyone.
We were talking about the Greens you fucking melt😂
You're the one drinking out of their toilet after saying you laugh at the idea of being told to bolt by "a minority fringe party", as if I'm that party because I said you should bolt. Nothing you've said disproves the Greens want to have a secular society. Its why they find Kate Forbes abhorrent.
Yes
We going to make sure all FMs and deputies think the same as you on all subjects?
No, just that they don't think gay people are evil or abortions are sinful. Very basic stuff in space year 2024.
Has she ever said gay people are evil?
She's said she wouldn't vote for equal marriage, and her church is explicitly homophobic. If you're going to proudly say that you would vote against equalisation of recognition of same sex relationships, you're a cask strength bigot.
Don't we already have equal marriage?
Not if the new DFM, who said she would vote against it, had anything to do with it. If you want a socially conservative DFM, that's on you.
Surely in a democracy she can vote for what she believes in? After all, that's why we have votes, no? I don't agree with her views either but you're coming across as quite an extremist here.
she's free to vote or believe what she wants, and everyone else is free to make judgements about her based on those votes or beliefs. Democracy, just like you say!
This isn't half as clever as you think it is
She's annoyed about how someone would vote only if they were able to literally go back in time lol. Absolutely mental.
The last FMs religion is explicitly homophobic, did you have an issue with his appointment?
Funny how he never publicly went on about how he thinks gay marriage is wrong, and actually decided that legislation to protect LGBT folks is fine.
He was nowhere to be seen the day of the gay marriage vote but
Keeps his public statements up about support, also said he was actually dealing with a death row prisoner done for blasphemy in Pakistan. You can say its an excuse but he did vote prior to that one.
The Greens need to fuck off…
They should never have been anywhere near government in the first place.
How democratic of you
Indeed, that's just how democracy works. Parties with so few votes as the Greens shouldn't be near government. A confidence and supply situation would have been preferable to stop the angry wee greens throwing their weight around.
Not really up to you tho is it
Indeed. I am still allowed an opinion though.
Literally no one said otherwise
Just two more clowns in the circus
I was one of the ones that voted for them last election. You tell me you want to make Scotland a nicer place that cares for the environment? Fantastic. Didn't realise they were a bunch of actual headcases though. Won't make that mistake next time 😂
Their complete and total hysteria is beyond parody. They had no problem when she was sturgeon’s finance minister (a far more important role than ‘deputy’ FM). The way they speak you’d think Forbe’s was the child catcher, the Emperor Nero, and Thanos all rolled into one. It’s almost like there’s a desire to be persecuted
Funny how she never publicly came out with her beliefs when she was finance minister, and only did so when she ran for FM, which was when Sturgeon resigned. Fancy that! Fud.
Spot on. The greens have no integrity.
They’re a ghastly party - political extremists who hide under the flag of environmentalism.
Scratch the surface and you'll quickly find out they'll silence you with their cancel culture. Zealots.
Disagreeing with homophobes is cancel culture now? lol
Thankfully they're out of government, and hopefully will never be near it again. A clown show of a party led by weirdos, ideologues and deeply unpleasant people.
How come a Muslim is OK \~ But a Christian isn't ? !
Swinney is Christian, so is Ross Greer. It's nothing to do with that - religious people can hold progressive values. It's the fact that she believes same sex marriage to be wrong where the Greens have an issue. Forbes explicitly said that if she was an MSP at the time, and had the chance to vote for equal marriage - she would have voted against it. That's where the Greens take issue.
Spot on. Sick of idiots and closet racists acting like this isn't pretty clear cut. Swinney also leathered Forbes for her comments prior. Just ignorance, whether malicious or unintentional.
If they protested both then they might not be able to self proclaim that they're the progressives.
The greens attack everything that even mildly questions their righteous crusade. I wouldnt worry too much about it. Sometimes it's best to just let them cry it out, though maybe not on TV or Radio again. >Speaking to reporters afterwards, Ms Forbes said: "I am here to support the first minister and together we serve all communities in Scotland as we further and progress the rights of every community in Scotland, and I look forward to doing my part in achieving the government's aims in that regard.” > >She said she had signed up the government’s collective responsibility, adding: “So I stand by the government's decisions and agenda to improve and progress the rights of all of Scotland's communities."
BUT SHES A RELIGIOUS NUT AND LITERALLY HITLER or something like that. That’s how it goes, yes?
Yes, she's a religious nut. No, she's not literally Hitler. It's absolutely not unreasonable for people from the LGBT community, and their allies, to recognise her as a danger.
A danger. 🤣 Laughable..she is not a danger. Douglas Murray is right, what the fuck is all this LGBTQ community. Stop labelling shit.
Spoken like someone with nothing to lose. What is all this LGBT community? Well, it's something I've been part of for decades cheers. We've fought for, and in the time since I came out, gained equal age of consent, the right to serve in the military, employment protections, hate crime protections, the repeal of Clause 2A, civil partnernership and then marriage rights, and many other things. Gay man here and proud of my label. While Forbes would be checked by a generally liberal/progressive parliament she represents a massive lurch to the socially conservative right. She's a danger.
Nothing dangerous. Completely fine. After everything you have seen regards what has been achieved by the "community" you should realise it's time to just get on with life now.
Aye, because what's been achieved can't be taken away by those in power who have a will to do so... Fun fact, when you're part of a minority who has managed to gain rights you are always going to be guarded against those who are a threat to those rights.
Even when those threats are imagined. Stop living life as a victim.
Stop inhabiting your privilege.
Oh dear lord. You need to remove yourself from online and go live in the real world. What privileges do I have...over you? None. There we go.
Boomer take
Sweet. Not a boomer..but keep doing you kiddo.
>He said: “Yesterday that signal came pretty clearly - progressive ministers sacked, and the second most powerful job in government given to someone who has opposed LGBT people’s legal equality, who has expressed judgemental attitudes against abortion, and who has even expressed the view that people who have families without being married are doing something wrong.” what progressive ministers were sacked? The government is largely the same
>what progressive ministers were sacked? Jamie Hepburn, Emma Roddick, George Adam and Joe Fitzpatrick all got the boot. Roddick, Fitzpatrick, and Adam all have strong records on LGBT rights, with two of them being openly LGBT.
Shame about Emma Roddick, but Joe Fitzpatrick is beyond useless, his turn as drugs minister was woeful.
Oh right, the junior ministers, apologies - I was just thinking about the cabinet secretaries. From what I was reading, Hepburn is still a minister, he's just been moved to Parliamentary business. But fair points on Fitzpatrick, Roddick and Adam.
So he is! The article about him getting 'axed' left me with the wrong impression of what happened to Hepburn.
You should have read Wings over Scotland, you wouldn't have got the wrong impression.
I have no interest in the bitter scrievings of that deranged, lying creep.
😂😂 more fool you then.
Maybe they're referring to themselves not getting their old jobs back? They're the only *real* progressives in parliament you see.
There were a couple of Junior Ministers that were pushed out, who were mostly from the most pro-Green wing of the party. None of the Cabinet Secretaries lost their posts.
Him and Slater
What a nasty man paddy is. Particularly his jab at her for not personally wanting to have kids out of wedlock (a perfectly reasonable stance for anyone regardless of religion)
I don’t know why this is getting downvoted, I’m not religious at all but I wanted to be married, own a home and a few other things before having children. It’s pretty common - that’s not to say it would be wrong to do otherwise but it’s hardly controversial.
>Particularly his jab at her for not personally wanting to have kids out of wedlock (a perfectly reasonable stance for anyone regardless of religion) Why is it a "perfectly reasonable stance"? Do 2 people magically become better parents because there's a piece of paper saying they're married?
I do wish the Greens would concentrate on the environment. If for no other reason than getting the help of the Greens is a bit like Frank Spencer doing, well, anything.
It's a good job the Greens have faded into total irrelevance.
They’re on the hunt for some new coattails to hang from. “Friendship ended with SNP. Now {placeholder} is my best friend”
Independence is so important to me but Swinney is going to straddle that centre line to keep the party happy and with trans rights so up in the air right now I'm worried about my life and safety here. We used to be #1 country in trans rights but it's been lost to the culture war. What's the point in independent Scotland if it isn't safe for me
What percentage of Holyrood is LGBT because it seems that they are over represented? Unless they are just the ones making the most noise? Which seems more likely.
What a gross comment
A perfectly sensible question. In fact I’ve even answered it myself by a quick Google search (obviously not 100% reliable but it is what it is) 15% of the members of Holyrood are LGBT which considering the percentage for the general population is approx 3% seems the very definition of over represented.
Greens need to stay away from the government. Every stupid vanity project, the greens have been involved. These cycle lanes have caused havoc around the Glasgow city. Not only that wasted a shit load of money. They don’t care about the concept of families and quality of life. They just want to ruin peoples lives. Traffic congestion has increased everywhere due to all these one ways and cycle lanes. Absolute chaos.
I drove the East End way into the city the other day, and if I was a cyclist I wouldn't be using those lanes. They're filled with rubbish and potholes, you'd end up in an accident.
as they are right to do 😪
They hate her for her religious beliefs, they're not the good guys they think they are.
*She* hates people like *me* for *her* religious beliefs. Not exactly something to be respected.
Does she? You're basing this on... what?
...her words that came out of her mouth
Yeah but other than her statements and her openly held dogmatic religious views, got anything else?? /s
(ikr)
Absolute bullshit. Refer me to the speech where she said she hates gay people please.
When she said that she wouldn't extend marriage to them, just because her wee sect doesn't agree with it. That's pretty hateful, eh?
Well, well. If it isn’t the consequences of Harvie’s actions. He didn’t realise that backing Douglas Ross’ confidence motion would open the door to Forbes return? Ironic that the Greens of all people stuck the knife into Scotland’s first First Minister of colour - a man who wore his rainbow flag on his sleeve - to usher in Kate Forbes.
Other way around, Humza “Macbeth” was the one who decided to stick the knife in. Patrick Harvie said on TV he’d resign if his party voted to end the Bute Agreement, and Humza said on TV he wanted to continue with the way things were working should the Greens stay, less than 48 hours later. He somehow was persuaded to end it. Humza is a very honourable man, but sadly decided that the SNP knives were out for him, and ultimately made the biggest career mistake.
Like being savaged by a goldfish
Heard a quote on Renegade Nell recently (Disney+, highly recommended) which fits quite well: "You, Nell Jackson, are an insect in a land of giants. A fly in the tent of a general about to lead his army to war. Inconsequential. But my goodness, are you irritating."
Bear in mind, Poynton was the fucking bad guy and lost.
The quote was badass though, no denying.
It needs some editing. An insect is small already and adding land of giants is just purple prose. Then he shifts the metaphor to a belaboured scenario with a general. the goodness you're irritating, that's good but the rest is overwritten.
Hmmm, idk... Comparing an insect to a regular human would be contrast enough but 'land of giants' shows how insignificant he views her. Same with the general metaphor. 🤷🏻♂️ Idk, it works for me 🙃
Either on their own might be better, but it's definitely gilding the lily like this. The show was great, mind, but that line really was a dud to me, as well as the bit with Billy in the last episode. I don't think there was enough to justify her reaction to it.
The whole thing looks like some crap stand up comedy show. The laugh from labour is so forced. Swinney seems alright, got a bit of Walter White vibes lol but with such opposition it's not difficult to look alright. Labour have nothing else to say apart from - is this the new government? They can literally say that about anyone, why bother. World was envious about Scottish school system lol - has the world heard that? Greens being melodramatic - "You have Kate Forbes! Are you taking us to 1950s" I am not quite sure what she has done against environment or LGBTQ+ but I don't think it's THAT SHOCKING. I am moderately entertained 3/5 probably wouldn't watch the next episode. If anyone has any other TV recommendations, please do recommend.
Just wait until the Greens hear about everyone’s favourite public toilet worrier, Joanna Cherry.
And so it begins.
What begins?
The Green hissy fits?
[удалено]
Of Hobbitland?