The SNP leadership contest - HUMZA USELESS WINS
 

A thread to discuss the SNP leadership race

Nominations for leader opened on 16 February, with Ash Regan and Humza
Yousaf both declaring their candidacy on 18 February. Kate Forbes announced
her candidacy on 20 February. Nominations closed on 24 February and voting
will begin on 13 March and close on 27 March, with the leader to be declared
that day.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...eg?imwidth=680
https://www.heraldscotland.com/resou...?type=og-image
https://i2-prod.dailyrecord.co.uk/in...S252105589.jpg

https://www.kateforbes.scot/

Three candidates will take part in the contest to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as
SNP leader and first minister.

MSPs Kate Forbes, Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf had all met the threshold
for nominations by the noon deadline.

The ballot of SNP members, which will use a single transferrable vote
system, opens on 13 March and the winner will be announced on 27 March.

Candidates had been required to get 100 nominations from at least 20 local
party branches.

But a poll published on Friday suggested Ms Forbes was the most popular
candidate among SNP voters.

The survey of 1,001 people who voted for the party at the last Scottish
Parliament election, carried out by communications agency The Big
Partnership between Monday and Wednesday, found 28% favoured Ms Forbes
as the next leader, against 20% for Mr Yousaf and 7% for Ms Regan. About a
third were undecided.

The poll also suggested that the cost of living crisis was regarded as the most
important issue, followed by the economy, the NHS and education. Only 5%
said they thought that the new leader's faith or personal beliefs were
important.

Protestants are now hounded out of politics, as Kate Forbes has shown

https://www.newstatesman.com/wp-cont...Forbes-web.jpg


So why did Kate Forbes do it? After years in parliament she will have been aware of the reaction to an MSP who declared their opposition to gay marriage, let alone pre-marital sex. Yet she did so anyway: immediately, almost proudly.

She was duly denounced as a bigot and her backers peeled away. A BBC radio phone-in had callers saying they’d feel “unsafe” with her in Bute House. One compared her with the Taliban. On day one she torched not just her own campaign but also, in all likelihood, her political career. Why?

One of her prominent supporters says she was out of practice: that seven months of maternity leave meant she bungled the question. But Ms Forbes is perhaps the smartest woman in Holyrood and an expert in talking about her faith, having been grilled about it in most interviews.

So I’m more inclined to go with another theory: that she decided to answer modestly but truthfully, and to expose the bigotry that religious politicians now face. And that any overreaction might – just might – provoke some soul-searching in her party.

“Love not Kate,” screamed the front page of the Daily Record, Scotland’s main tabloid, after she spoke about saving herself for marriage. A bit of a stretch; is pre-marital celibacy, however old-fashioned, really a form of hatred? But the word is being invoked here in its new, modern sense.

A “hate crime” isn’t really about hatred. It’s about deviating from the new set of liberal social beliefs which are now taking the form of a religion – and one in front of which Ms Forbes has decided not to genuflect. With results now there for all to see.

It’s worth reflecting on her offending words, because there weren’t many of them. On sex: “My faith would say that sex is for marriage – that’s the approach that I would practise.” On gender: “A rapist cannot be a woman, and therefore my straight answer would be that Isla Bryson is a man.” And on gay marriage: “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. But I would have respected and defended the democratic choice that was made.”

Such are the words that can now shoot down the highest political flyer, but it’s hard to see how she could have been more polite or restrained. She was talking about her personal worldview – stressing how, as first minister, she’d defend the rights of others.

When it comes to her job, she said, she “couldn’t care less what two consenting adults do in the comfort of their own bedroom”. But this was not about what she’d do, it’s about what she thinks. She has shown, in case the Tim Farron episode left any doubt, that a test of doctrinal purity is back.

In a way, it’s a return to the old days, where it was common to regard a religious minority as inherently suspect. For centuries, we had Test Acts which demanded that anyone in public life – even teachers – swore allegiance to Protestant beliefs, thereby keeping out Catholics, Jews and other nonconformists. They stayed until 1828 in England and 1889 in Scotland, but suspicion still lingered.

When John F Kennedy ran for president, his Catholicism was a talking point in interviews. As with Forbes, some argued that it was fine for a religious minority to have the number-two job (in his case, vice-president; in hers, finance minister), but just not be in charge. Kennedy decided to take this head-on and spoke to a gathering of Protestants in Houston in a speech later hailed as a template for religious tolerance in a democracy.

He asked to be judged only on what kind of America he believed in. “What kind of church I believe in,” he said, “should be important only to me.” And if religious candidates are subjected to a purity test, where would that lead, given changing political fashions? Today, he said, “it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed. It may some day be again a Jew, a Quaker, a Unitarian or a Baptist … Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped.”

It is now Protestants – Forbes and Farron – who are the highest-profile political victims of this new intolerance. Both pleaded, as JFK did, that their innermost thoughts should not really matter: they’d vote to protect diversity and equality. Both were asking for tolerance of religious minorities. And both ended up being denounced as bigots, because neither would, when asked, renounce the teachings of their church.

This is the real question raised by Forbes. How can a multi-faith democracy work unless we accept and respect religious differences? Do we want to live in a country where children growing up in a Muslim, Jewish or Christian family see – in Ms Forbes’s monstering – that they’ll hit a glass ceiling in their career unless they renounce certain aspects of their faith? Was the Equality Act of 2010 ever intended to impose a new religion, with apostates identified, hounded and deposed?

Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister, put it well. The whole saga, she said, was intended to protect diversity, not enforce conformity. It’s a shield to protect minorities, not a sword to attack them. If people like Kate Forbes cannot say what they believe without being pilloried, then we have somehow ushered in a draconian system that needs to be dismantled. Outside politics, if people can be fired or disciplined for public expressions of aspects of their faith, how strong is our claim to be a country of religious freedom?

“I do not intend to apologise for these views,” said Kennedy in 1960. “Nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.” His words ended the debate – and, it was felt at the time, ended the era where any candidate’s religion was a bar to political progress. But that did not, it seems, last for long. As Ms Forbes tries to salvage what remains of her campaign, she can at least say she has shown that this old discrimination is back, and that a brief window of tolerance that Kennedy opened has snapped shut.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...bes-has-shown/

Top Comment: I am not a churchgoer, nor an ardent supporter of religion in general, but I can’t help but admire someone who has the courage to state their beliefs against a backdrop of skewed leftist thinking which demonises anyone or anything that disagrees with it.

DT letter
 

SIR – If the unpopularity of Nicola Sturgeon’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill
led to her downfall, what does this say about Scottish Labour’s ability to
understand public opinion?

It voted for this legislation and enabled it to pass.

Carol Rispin
Hessle, East Yorkshire

Yes more phone ins today about Kate Forbes and her suitability for high office given her beliefs....not a word about

Humza Yousaf ‘skipped gay marriage vote following pressure from mosque’
Minister alleges SNP leadership frontrunner asked Alex Salmond for permission to duck the final vote, which he vigorously denies

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...marriage-vote/

oh come on LT, there are christian views and then there are 17th century christian views, and she holds 17th century Christian views

They are views held by every Muslim in the UK

yes, but that doesn't make them right, or are you saying its all just fine

Rishi Sunak is a Hindu and they believe in an arranged marriage and many are not that keen on homosexuality

No more alcohol for LT

they are both grim LT, lets be honest, and the other candidate doesn't have a hope of winning

Im asking myself what party (if any) in the UK has one decent politician?

Not every Muslim has anti-gay, anti-abortion views, what an ignorant statement

Mr buckethead of course

https://static.reuters.com/resources...PEFBC0BR&w=800

Humza Youseless ducked the final vote on legalising same-sex marriage in Scotland following pressure from Muslim leaders

This is a guy who wants to be FM being told what to do by his mosque

chilling

Every practising Muslim will hold more or less the same views as Kate Forbes, they are just not asked about it

Are there any current figures or estimations?

yesterday Forbes had a 7 point lead in the polls

Humza Yousaf
said for the First Year,
of the new Bottle/Food changes,
will now not include small business


Ref : BBC1HD Laura K.

He was questioned about his voting record on same sex marriage this morning by Sophie Ridge, he said he was in Pakistan dealing with a prisoner who was on death row and trying to bring him back to the UK.....

He is a practising Muslim and will observe Ramadam but does not believe same sex marriage is a sin...

Yes Complex

I will enjoy the first Live TV debate
9PM STV1HD Tues 7 March
which I have on my SatHD box

For any that want to watch this
the want you to sign in Free, though.
https://player.stv.tv/live/stv

I bet no-one would have the balls to question him on that.

And if they did, they wouldn't be treated in the same way as those who grill Forbes on her beliefs.