The State of the UK Union in 2022

(20-02-2023 22:35 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  No, I don't think that'll damage her. Yousaf, however, is falling into the same trap as Sturgeon on the gender bill.

She didn't read the room up here. Unbelievably the Westminster Tories did and played her like a fiddle.

It already is damaging her, Richard Lochead MSP tweeted today at 11am that he was delighted she put her name forward and now we have a real contest, retweeting her announcement video, something he did not do for the other two. At 22:40 less than 12 hrs later he tweeted "...we can't have a party leader who would vote against same sex marriage"

Meanwhile Pete Wishart MP tweeted at 11am that he hoped Forbes would not be detered from standing over the "rubbish about her religious beliefs", he then tweeted he was "really pleased" upon her announcement she was standing. Someone then tweeted him saying they couldn't vote for someone who didn't back abortion or same sex marriage to which he replied "neither could I".

Then at 20:43 he tweeted "Kate had every chance to say that she would be prepared to come in behind the parties social liberal agenda. It looks like she wasn’t prepared to take it. There’s only one place to go now." It's rare to see a candidate bleeding support on their launch day.

In addition, as I have said The SNP relies disproportionately on the youth vote both for elections in Holyrood and Westminster and for a.future IndyRef: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/a...ty-3132647 and they are heavy on socially liberal policies.

In terms of Yousaf i don't think the GRRB is a problem. People who oppose it are seeing what they want to see but correlation does not always equal causality. Yes the bill was controversial and did damage to Sturgeon's personal approval ratings but it passed with 85% of SNP MSPs votes and she was still the most net favourable party leader in the country (both Scotland and UK). I find it hard to see a leader being taken down by a bill that more than 8 in 10 of her MSPs support.

If anything took down Sturgeon it would be the quagmire on Indy2, with Westminster refusing a second ref, the Supreme Court striking her down her bid to hold one without Westminster approval she was left with one option, making the next general election a de facto IndyRef2. This option is divisive in the party and could of failed at conference leaving her with no room to maneuver.

Whether the next leader is for or against the de facto it is an issue which will cause real damage to the party going forward.

Another, Gillian Martin MSP at 12:00 "Kate Forbes has what it takes to be First Minister. I’m delighted that she has decided to stand. It was my pleasure to nominate her this morning. I’m happy to talk to any of my local members about why I think she can lead us to become a prosperous independent country for all"

Then at 23:30 "I too was uncomfortable with Kate Forbes responses re equal marriage on TV. I have spoken to her, and she knows this. I need to sleep and reflect on the assurances she has given me. I don’t like doing this out loud thinking in public, but I think I have a duty to say where I am."

Don't confuse the parliamentary party with the great unwashed of the party membership. Membership which is only a marriage of convenience for many of them.

You're not reading the room either when it comes to the gender reform bill. There was no majority in favour of it, in it's current form, amongst the general public, even before Isla Bryson. Sure there was a big majority in parliament. But 85% is still piss poor for a vote that was whipped by the party that brought the bill. The fact the party leadership had to whip the vote at all should tell you something.

Westminster, instead of trying to get amendments to the bill early on, that would have made it compatible with the rest of the UK (they wouldn't have got anywhere anyway) they just let Sturgeon have enough rope then hit her with the section 35. I'm sure Sturgeon was ecstatic at this, and expected to ride to her special conference on a wave of nationalist indignation and get her de facto referendum approved to rapturous applause.
Instead the public response mostly ranged between "meh" and actual relief.

That was what fucked her.

There is actually a dearth of polling on what SNP membership think of The GRRB, Prof Tim Bale of Queen Mary University London did a deep dive in The Times where there was not info on that subject but showed, like other parties, it's membership skewed more heavily in the parties ideological position than the general populace.

There was a poll by Ipsos that showed whilst Scots overall supported Westminster invoking S35, 50 - 33%, 17% don't know, SNP voters opposed it 52 - 31%, 17% don't know. Whilst that is a significant minority since the membership is more left wing than voters i would expect a larger margin opposing S35.

Of course thats not a gurantee especially as self id has been an issue that has split the left but as i said, with the overwhelming support of MSPs, a majority of SNP voters opposing S35 by 21%, her approval rating the best in the country, The SNP still dominating the polls and no clear successor i find it hard to see where the jeopardy was for her, i seriosuly doubt either she or The SNP would be toppled by this single issue, especially with Indy still polling at around 50% and the party being the only realistic vehicle for achieving that.

In additon had the GRRB been granted Royal Assent and implemented then over time the public would come to see that it would not have led to an increase of sexual assault in singe sex spaces as is the case in every other country that has implemented it.


Changing slightly, Gillian Martin MSP has confirmed this morning that she is disendorsing Forbes over same sex marriage as is Clare Haughey MSP who tweeted she was unequivocal in her support in same sex marriage and cannot continue to support Forbes.

Now there's someone who cannot read a room

Ivan McKee MSP walks to Channel 4 News, saying he "firmly supports equal marriage" and it is "an important part of our society"

When asked if he still endorses Forbes he replies that he will talk to Kate about her campaign later today.

McKee is her campaign manager

She has no business being in the mix imo, nothing wrong with being religious, but her views are not what you want in a leader.
I honestly believe that as soon as somebody says they are opposed to abortion, or are against gay marriage etc, the can fuck right off.

^^
Kate Forbes shot herself in the foot again today by saying its wrong for people to have children outside of marriage!!!!!!!

I remember when Evangelical Christians launched their "global war on porn" including targeting strip clubs here in the uk, most people said "they're only going after porn, nothing else" but experts on evangelical christians said "this is just the beginning, they're going after all women's rights & lgbtq+ rights".....

The experts were right

Interesting times.

Forbes is by far the most competent to run the economy but would split the party with her abhorrent views on same sex marriage etc.
Humza Sturgeon2.0 will carry on with the same fuck-ups and split the party over the GRRB.
Ash Regan still MIA and maybe out of it already, unless she already has the nominations in the bag and is just sitting back with her popcorn. And if she does get it, she'll split the party over the de facto referendum.

(21-02-2023 09:05 )southsidestu Wrote:  In additon had the GRRB been granted Royal Assent and implemented then over time the public would come to see that it would not have led to an increase of sexual assault in singe sex spaces as is the case in every other country that has implemented it.

That sounds very patronising, and not the way to win people over. Mind you the SNP often make that mistake as well.
And it's a red herring anyway. The majority of the public who opposed the bill cited the lowering of the age from 18 to 16 as the reason.
And you talk about the overwhelming support for the bill in parliament, which is true. But it's also true that the 10 MSPs who defied the SNP whip was also the biggest rebellion against the leadership since the SNP came to power 15 years ago.
Without the support of Labour, the Libdems, and a handful of Tories, that bill would not have gone through, even with the Greens on board.

(21-02-2023 09:05 )southsidestu Wrote:  i seriosuly doubt either she or The SNP would be toppled by this single issue, especially with Indy still polling at around 50%

Well yes, exactly. She has had an unassailable grip on power, and the party, for the last 8 years and support for independence has more or less stagnated the whole time. It's hardly a ringing endorsement of her handling of the campaign.

I don't care if it is patronising I'm not a politician, its not my job to win people over. I agree that politicians and people on the left wing commentariat are too aggressive & that Social Democratic Parties should look to make arguments in a way that resonate with the people they need to win i.e making climate change about energy security, lowering household bills & the economic opportunities that come with it. I think it would be a good idea for left wing parties to get themselves some centre right advisers in their Comms department to help with their strategy.

There is also a responsibility for the individual to see past their own biases, they are after all adults and not children.

As i have said there is no evidence to show in the countries that have implemented self ID there has been an increase in attacks on woman in single sex spaces.

The equalities Act of 2010 which was used as the justification for the S35 already allows transgender people access to single sex spaces, people are whipping up hysteria over a more than decades old status quo. Some might argue that the problem is that self id gets around the status quo, i get that, luckily the first point negates that.

It is a tried and tested trope that the most vulnerable in society are portrayed as rapists to justify their oppression.

The Ku Klux Klan portrayed black people as rapists, the even made a movie Birth of a Nation where they ride on horseback draped in their robes and apprehend a black man creeping on a white woman and hang him.

Gay people where portrayed as pedoephiles, the EDL scaremongered about muslims marrying your daughter and subjugating her under Sharia Law, even though only a small percentage of muslims observe that practice.

The BNP made an election video showing muslim men in full middle eastern attire chasing a school girl with bottle of alcohol to entice her.

Donald Trump portrayed people coming over the southern border fleeing states corrupted by gang violence as rapists.

And so here we are again another vulnerable community, trans people are amongst those most likely to be assaulted, to contemplate or commit suicide etc and the spectre of rape is hung over their heads, the wheel of oppression turns again.

In terms of lowering to 16 again i don't see what the big deal is, 16 is old enough to work, old enough to pay tax, old enough to vote for The SNP, i'm sure for many who oppose self-id 15 was old enough for Shamima Begum to know exactly what she was doing. Its funny how 16 is old enough for things people agree with but too young when its something they disagree with.

There is nothing special about me, i am not an academic, i do not work with LGBT charities, i am not a special adviser, I am not a high flying intellectual, i don't have a Uni degree or any form of tertiary education, I work in hospitality, an idiot could to my job. I am just an average joe who takes the time to inform himself about a subject and it doesn't take long.

People have lives they can't engage fully with every subject thats why politicans need to make the argument that appeals to them but if people are going to engage in a subject they should at least educate themselves on the basics.

Self-Id has not led to an increase in attacks in single sex spaces in the countries that have implemented it, if you continue to make that argument in spite of the evidence then you don't care about protecting woman you are just plain bigoted.

(22-02-2023 16:25 )southsidestu Wrote:  Self-Id has not led to an increase in attacks in single sex spaces in the countries that have implemented it, if you continue to make that argument in spite of the evidence then you don't care about protecting woman you are just plain bigoted.

Show me one post where I actually said that was my view. I was making observations about what was going on in the country, nothing more. In fact, if you bother to read my last post again you will see I was saying it wasn't the issue of single sex spaces that was bothering people.

I don't think I've said where I stood myself on the GRRB so, just for the record I'm in favour of it.

Maybe you need to calm down a bit and read what people are actually saying instead of projecting.
Then you might be able to have a reasonable discussion instead of posting a diatribe like that.