To worry about Kate Forbes becoming first minister

[Creatine11]

Abortion and LGBT rights have been something that have largely not been part of political debate for at least the last 10 years. Gay marriage was enacted in 2014 and was broadly supported. The last serious challenge to abortion rights was at the start of the coalition government with Nadine Dorries et all. However, broadly gay rights and abortion rights have been settled issues- it has almost been taboo for politicians to oppose them. Certainly, there hasn’t been any serious possibility over the last decade (at least) of any rowing back on abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, divorce law etc.

However, it is clear that in the heart of hearts of Forbes she disagrees with all these things due to her beliefs as an evangelical Christian. By all accounts she was very competent as a minister and has been a good MSP. However, as first minister she will be a figurehead for Scotland as well as setting the tone for policy and political discourse. Also, unlike Rees-Mogg and DUP types, Kate Forbes seems like an otherwise sensible, competent, ‘normal’ politician.

My concern is Forbes being the leader of Scotland could normalise her views on these issues. While I don’t believe abortion or gay marriage face immediate threat, if it’s brought into mainstream politics it will become a party political issue and may well shift public opinion, especially given the current culture war. Politicians, journalists, activists and others who have held these views quietly may be emboldened to launch a new campaign against abortion, LGBT rights or some other issue. I don’t know this would necessarily just be limited to Scotland as Nicola Sturgeon and her policies had a very high profile in the rest of the UK and influenced policy.

Aibu to worry about Kate Forbes becoming SNP leader and first minister?

I have to say if you believe that you really will believe anything. Try judging people by their actions not the cheap stock phrases they roll out to lull the gullible in to believing they are progressive. Only thing Humza cares about is Humza.

Whatever @TeaKlaxon .

the facts -

You've got a religious woman who has said that she would have struggled to have voted in favour of gay marriage

You've got a religious man who failed to attend, reportedly because he was put under pressure not to and factually because HE DIARISED A CLASH SO HE COULDN'T MAKE THE FINAL VOTE.

And it's racist to point out that only one of these people is being put to task on their views?

Not to mention you're calling her the homophobe when the genderists are the one with vile homophobic beliefs. You know the ones where the lesbians are the bigots if they don't do dick!

Would the dangerous AGP men larping as women or the ones with 'prison onset trans' be admitted to the single sex spaces for Muslim women. Would Drag storytime (fetish display version) be happening in a Muslim school? Humza is becoming v hypocritical.

I mean the irony of you saying this when you have spent god knows how long trying to cobble together and then double down on an outrageous hypothetical scenario based on ummmm hey look over there at the black people is staggering. You have got to be joking.

You can persist with this continued pretence that you somehow know whether and how much discrimination I've faced. You don't know me or anyone else on here, so stop the pretence and engage with the substance if you want (or don't - your call - but you're just proving my point with every post).

If you believe that separate but equal is not discriminatory, you should own that. Not dance around the awful logical consequence of that view - i.e. that school segregation in the American south was not discriminatory. I think you're dead wrong about that.

Alternatively, if you agree with me that separate but equal is discriminatory, then that applies to marriage too.

You can't have it both ways.

Actions like voting for marriage equality on a number of occassions?

She didn't say she would have struggled. She said she would have voted against it.

And on the other hand you have someone who voted in favour of it a number of times.

You don't get to marginalise what discrimination you view as significant or not.

Just so you know.

But that's what it comes down to, isn't it? You don't think the rights of gay people to call themselves married or not matter, do you? You're just another bigot who is too scared to admit it.

Still no substantive response to the various examples I've given of why separate but equal is a discriminatory concept?

Fair enough.

Keep calling people who support trans rights - including lesbians like me - homophobes while defending those who actually believe gay people should have fewer rights.

Exactly this.

That poster doesn't like examples of racist separate but equal policies because she is either not a racist (I hope) or at least is sufficiently uncomfortable with racism not to want it exposed.

On the other hand, she is fine defending separate but equal for gay people.

You need to stop saying that I don’t agree segregation in the American south was not discriminatory as I have never said that, I said the direct opposite. I said it was not a comparable situation. I’m giving you the opportunity to withdraw that comment yourself before I report it to MN.

I haven’t said anything about trans rights. Again you need to correct that statement

Except the vote that actually counts YAWN

Apologies my wording was poor she did say she would vote against.

Yousaf declined to vote in favour at the final vote following pressure from religious leaders.

That, of itself, would make me wonder whether Yousaf is able to be impartial. Even if his own religious beliefs would not prevent him from being impartial it appears that those of others might.

Seems hypocritical that one of them is worthy of being a leader, in spite of their religious beliefs, yet the other isn't.

Of course it was comparable.

Your claim is that if you get the same benefits, it doesn't matter if you get them through some separate institution. That's not discrimination, you say.

Now, either that logic applies to black children getting an education in a segregated school and to gay couples having to get a CP instead of a marriage - or else the onus is on you to explain why you think it is discrimination in one situation but not the other.

Do you have the slightest idea how legislation works?

Or shall we add that to ministers' diaries (hint: they don't set them themselves) and whipping operations (hint slips are v common) in terms of things you make claims about without understanding them?

It really, really isn’t comparable but regardless I still didn’t say it wasn’t discriminatory. You need to correct that.

You set out your claim and I drew the logical conclusion from it.

Same benefits but different institution = not discrimination (according to you). It's up to you if you want to explain why that inference is incorrect, but so far you've not even tried to.

The claim that he didn't vote emerged after pressure is an unsubstantiated claim by a Kate Forbes backer. Do you have any evidence of this?

Because the evidence that we have that Yousaf supports gay marriage is considerable - he voted for it on several occasions. Evidence that he doesn't support it (apart from assumptions about Muslims) is non-existent.

You appear to be claiming that the first hand of accounts of people there at the time are incorrect @TeaKlaxon

There are accounts that he asked permission to miss the vote because he was put under considerable pressure by 'the mosque' not to vote.

And that he organised the clash of appointment once permission was granted.

I actually have quite in-depth knowledge of parliamentary systems so yes I do. And yes I know parliamentarians personally so again I do know quite a bit about how diaries work and guess what, if there is a clash and someone really cares about one issue they re-arrange the clash in favour of the issue they really care about unless entirely unavoidable. Do you really think that the issue that clashed with the gay marriage vote wasn’t able to be re-arranged? If so you haven’t a clue. Why do you think the vote to pass legislation is not the most decisive vote? He could have skipped all the others and still voted in the one that mattered.

Evidence that he doesn't support it (apart from assumptions about Muslims) is non-existent.

Except that the evidence that he failed to attend the vote exists.

You didn’t. You said if you don’t agree on x you can’t agree on y, despite me stating unequivocally that segregation in the American south was discriminatory.

Accounts by who?

Who 'were there at the time' who would be familiar with communications between Yousaf's office and the whips office?

Alex Neil.