OV9

True - you have to consume news from several different sources these days and make up your own mind

dinny_g wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:11 pm True - you have to consume news from several different sources these days and make up your own mind

And that's the issue. Today's society (sweeping generalisation) seem unwilling/unable/too lazy to do so. They just seem to latch on to something that's on social media that presumably is lined-up with their own beliefs or wishes and then back that to the hilt without even considering there might be an alternative position.

Ascender wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:42 pm

dinny_g wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:11 pm True - you have to consume news from several different sources these days and make up your own mind

And that's the issue. Today's society (sweeping generalisation) seem unwilling/unable/too lazy to do so. They just seem to latch on to something that's on social media that presumably is lined-up with their own beliefs or wishes and then back that to the hilt without even considering there might be an alternative position.

how very presumptuous of you - have you studied all members of society to form this view?...

Rich B wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:47 pm

Ascender wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:42 pm

dinny_g wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:11 pm True - you have to consume news from several different sources these days and make up your own mind

And that's the issue. Today's society (sweeping generalisation) seem unwilling/unable/too lazy to do so. They just seem to latch on to something that's on social media that presumably is lined-up with their own beliefs or wishes and then back that to the hilt without even considering there might be an alternative position.

how very presumptuous of you - have you studied all members of society to form this view?...

No, but someone on twitter said it.

This is all playing out very strangely. Kate Forbes has stated the views of her religion - she's not once said she would be looking to repeal any laws as a result - and she seems to be getting hammered from all sides.

Meanwhile, the religious views of the other two candidates have not been mentioned or even questioned.

Ascender wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:04 am

Rich B wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:47 pm

Ascender wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:42 pm

And that's the issue. Today's society (sweeping generalisation) seem unwilling/unable/too lazy to do so. They just seem to latch on to something that's on social media that presumably is lined-up with their own beliefs or wishes and then back that to the hilt without even considering there might be an alternative position.

how very presumptuous of you - have you studied all members of society to form this view?...

No, but someone on twitter said it.

This is all playing out very strangely. Kate Forbes has stated the views of her religion - she's not once said she would be looking to repeal any laws as a result - and she seems to be getting hammered from all sides.

Meanwhile, the religious views of the other two candidates have not been mentioned or even questioned.

I think it's fair to question someone's suitability for such a position when they're openly part of quite an extreme religious group. I would expect the others to get grilled if they were against lgbtqi+ equality.

Forbes and Humza Yousaf have both basically said the same thing - that their religious views won't determine how they would legislate, but up here certainly, Forbes seems to be the one getting all the flak about it.

ZedLeg wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:09 am

Ascender wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:04 am

Rich B wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:47 pm how very presumptuous of you - have you studied all members of society to form this view?...

No, but someone on twitter said it.

This is all playing out very strangely. Kate Forbes has stated the views of her religion - she's not once said she would be looking to repeal any laws as a result - and she seems to be getting hammered from all sides.

Meanwhile, the religious views of the other two candidates have not been mentioned or even questioned.

I think it's fair to question someone's suitability for such a position when they're openly part of quite an extreme religious group. I would expect the others to get grilled if they were against lgbtqi+ equality.

But they don't. The religious beliefs of Christians are scrutinised to an extent that just doesn't happen with anyone of any other religious beliefs. Happened to Tim Farron as well.

We all know why that is.

Don't do that, it makes you look like a knuckle dragger. If you look at a person's voting record and there's a clear pattern of voting against progressive policy that goes against your religious beliefs then there should be questions asked.

ZedLeg wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:22 am Don't do that, it makes you look like a knuckle dragger. If you look at a person's voting record and there's a clear pattern of voting against progressive policy that goes against your religious beliefs then there should be questions asked.

I don't disagree that questions should be asked, and I struggle to understand how someone can keep their beliefs from influencing their politics in even the smallest of ways - it's human nature. But can you cite any examples of anyone of any other religious belief having their beliefs questioned to the same extent?

This is just imo but I don't think people are questioning her beliefs in the sense that they think she should change them, it's more that people are asking whether someone with those beliefs is suitable for public office.

The same questions have been asked of about 2/3rds of the recent Westminster cabinet. I'm not sure how much of that was based on religion and how much is based on those people all sucking.

I guess there's two sides to it. One, people/party don't want to be represented or led by someone with views that are outdated and might cloud judgement or reduce votes. Then there's the second element of someone who can't deal with standard questioning by the press without looking like an arse. The second one is probably harder for women because the press can be harsher on them I think.

Its a mix of a few things... how its being reported... how it could be seen that they appear to be treating someone differently for their gender and/or religion... and there's some party spin in there too - the SNP will have a favourite candidate in mind.

Is someone who believes in a sky fairy even fit to run for public office? That's a massive red flag right there.
Just look at the crazy crap that's happening in America the past few years...

Big story rumoured to be breaking tomorrow.

Zonda_ wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:01 pm Big story rumoured to be breaking tomorrow.

Seems to be a bit of a damp squib - can't see anything has appeared.

There must be a reason for her to rush the announcement though; if she's been thinking for a while about the future, she didn't need to surprise her own party and the press with a hastily arranged announcement. So I'm expecting something to come out.

Yeah, I'm still expecting it to be more stuff about her husband's "loan" to the party.

It was only a matter of time…

Nicola Sturgeon's husband Peter Murrell arrested in SNP finance probe https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65187823

Aye, looks like the end is nigh for them.

She really held on until the last second if she knew this was coming though.

What's the view on the new guy up there @ZedLeg? Can't say I've seen much of him yet.

A bit of a non entity tbh. Possibly the best of a bad lot but if I'm being honest, by the time it got to voting for them I preferred Kate Forbes. Even with her religious stuff and fairly tory economic thinking.

He's had his fair share of stupid scandals and bad press but he was clearly the favoured candidate by the outgoing leadership.