Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

Is that any different to 'it is in my view wrong?'.

They would be different according to my academic understanding.

[Nearly Sane]

My academic training would say that they are different.

That's nice for it!

[Nearly Sane]

It is not an approach that I would practise.

Good for you.

[Nearly Sane]

Isn't that what a lot of politicians do?

Undoubtedly but is it true here?

[ProfessorDavey]

Is that any different to 'it is in my view wrong?'.

See what I did there.

Only reply 197 gives a clear, unequivocal indication of my view. All the others add layers of ambiguity and or detachment of my view from me, by offloading it not some aspect of me, e.g. academic training or understanding.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's nice for it!

But that's what Forbes is doing rather than being unequivocal about her view.

[ProfessorDavey]

Good for you.

But that's what Forbes is doing rather than being unequivocal about her view.

[Nearly Sane]

But that's what Forbes is doing rather than being unequivocal about her view.

She doesn't do it because she thinks it's wrong. That is not equivocal.

[Nearly Sane]

See what I did there.

Only reply 197 gives a clear, unequivocal indication of my view. All the others add layers of ambiguity and or detachment of my view from me, by offloading it not some aspect of me, e.g. academic training or understanding.

Yes, I see you have no idea of context.

[ProfessorDavey]

She doesn't do it because she thinks it's wrong. That is not equivocal.

She is because she is somehow offloading her view onto being not about her, but about her faith or her practise - in other words something separate from her view, this is what she practises - this is what her faith says. In my view she is trying to sidestep actually owning her rather offensive views.

The point is that she has a choice to decide to follow a particular practice, she has the choice to agree with, or not to agree with specific tenets of her religious belief. Therefore if she has decided to follow that practice or agree with that particular tenet of faith then she owns them - they become her view, not merely some detached element of her practise or her faith separate from her.

[Nearly Sane]

She is because she is somehow offloading her view onto being not about her, but about her faith or her practise - in other words something separate from her view, this is what she practises - this is what her faith says.

The point is that she has a choice to decide to follow a particular practice, she has the choice to agree with, or not to agree with specific tenets of her religious belief. Therefore if she has decided to follow that practice or agree with that particular tenet of faith then she owns them - they become her view, not merely some detached element of her practise or her faith separate from her.

It's easy to say this is what my belief is. It's more significant if it's what you do.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I see you have no idea of context.

The context was answering a specific question about my view on a particular matter - just as Forbes was asked specific questions about her views on particular matters. You can either answer that directly (as I did in 197) or you can fail to answer it directly by offloading my view onto some quasi-separate element of myself, which is what I did in replies 198-200. That is the approach that Forbes keeps taking. I've no idea whether it is a deliberate approach or merely something innate in her answers but frankly I find it weird, evasive, and frankly irritating. And by the way those are my views not that according to my professional understanding it is weird, evasive, and frankly irritating.

[Nearly Sane]

The context was answering a specific question about my view on a particular matter - just as Forbes was asked specific questions about her views on particular matters. You can either answer that directly (as I did in 197) or you can fail to answer it directly by offloading my view onto some quasi-separate element of myself, which is what I did in replies 198-200. That is the approach that Forbes keeps taking. I've no idea whether it is a deliberate approach or merely something innate in her answers but frankly I find it weird, evasive, and frankly irritating. And by the way those are my views not that according to my professional understanding it is weird, evasive, and frankly irritating.

So just your feeling then.

[Nearly Sane]

Yousaf not popular with 'Indian Council of Scotland'


https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/indian-council-scotland-claims-indian-29280740

[Nearly Sane]

More battles between the 'believers' in Scottish politics. (Note: I am aware that could be read as to cast doubt on those who believe in Scottish politics. The ambiguity is deliberate)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64738926


I am intrigued by this idea that there religious beliefs are a 'personal faith' that should not be brought into politics. First of all because politics needs to work in the area of morality and all morality choices are a ' personal faith'. Second, Wilberforce campaigned against slavery because of his personal faith beliefs, and  many in the Labour movement were inspired by their personal faith. 

The separation of morality that is based on a religious faith as being bad as opposed to other types of morality serms to me both bad philosophy and bad theology.

[Nearly Sane]

Meanwhile Yousaf and the Scottish NHS

https://www.scotsman.com/health/snp-leadership-contest-humza-yousafs-leadership-credentials-dealt-blow-by-nhs-report-4037771

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting poll of SNP members in favour of Forbes


https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/snp-leadership-election-kate-forbes-humza-yousaf-poll-2169987

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting poll of SNP members in favour of Forbes


https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/snp-leadership-election-kate-forbes-humza-yousaf-poll-2169987

And a reported reaction

[ProfessorDavey]

And a reported reaction

As mentioned upthread - never underestimate the ability of party members to vote for a leader who is the least suitable of the candidates on the ballot paper. The Tories did it last time out, Labour the time before last, perhaps its the SNPs turn to realise that you leave the choice of leader to your members at your peril. Particularly a problem when the leader you vote in will also become PM/FM rather than just a useless leader in opposition (e.g. Corbyn).

[Nearly Sane]

As mentioned upthread - never underestimate the ability of party members to vote for a leader who is the least suitable of the candidates on the ballot paper. The Tories did it last time out, Labour the time before last, perhaps its the SNPs turn to realise that you leave the choice of leader to your members at your peril. Particularly a problem when the leader you vote in will also become PM/FM rather than just a useless leader in opposition (e.g. Corbyn).

The Tories and Labour don't leave the choice to the membership fully though. And you seem to be making the decision that both that Forbes is the wrong choice, and that one member one vote is a bad thing.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Tories and Labour don't leave the choice to the membership fully though.

True but that is merely about who gets on the ballot paper. The SNP process seems to have the lightest of light touches to get on the ballot paper, merely 100 member nominations. If you have a stricter set of criteria for getting on the ballot paper you may filter out candidates who are deeply unsuitable but the membership might love.

And you seem to be making the decision that both that Forbes is the wrong choice

I think that her views make her unsuitable to be leader of the SNP and FM - in the latter role she needs to represent the whole population of Scotland and someone who has been so vocal in indicating that she believes that I would suspect the vast majority of that population are immoral suggests to me that she is unsuitable for that role.

, and that one member one vote is a bad thing.

I think allowing a tiny proportion of the population (who do not themselves have any electoral mandate) to select a person who becomes either PM or FM is a major problem democratically. This isn't just selecting a leader of a political party, it is about selecting a PM (in the case of Boris and Truss in recent times) or FM (in the current election). I don't have such a problem with leaving the selection to members when a party is in opposition as there is a further hurdle before that individual becomes PM or FM, namely the wider electorate.

[Nearly Sane]

True but that is merely about who gets on the ballot paper. The SNP process seems to have the lightest of light touches to get on the ballot paper, merely 100 member nominations. If you have a stricter set of criteria for getting on the ballot paper you may filter out candidates who are deeply unsuitable but the membership might love.
I think that her views make her unsuitable to be leader of the SNP and FM - in the latter role she needs to represent the whole population of Scotland and someone who has been so vocal in indicating that she believes that I would suspect the vast majority of that population are immoral suggests to me that she is unsuitable for that role.
I think allowing a tiny proportion of the population (who do not themselves have any electoral mandate) to select a person who becomes either PM or FM is a major problem democratically. This isn't just selecting a leader of a political party, it is about selecting a PM (in the case of Boris and Truss in recent times) or FM (in the current election). I don't have such a problem with leaving the selection to members when a party is in opposition as there is a further hurdle before that individual becomes PM or FM, namely the wider electorate.

So was Merkel unsuitable for her role after she voted against same sex marriage? And you seem not to mean represent the 'whole of Scotland' since no one can do that.

Without changing to a presidential system, how do you extend the electorate beyond a party's membership?

[ProfessorDavey]

So was Merkel unsuitable for her role after she voted against same sex marriage?

I wasn't just talking about her views on gay married but that she considers people who have had sex without being married or have children without being married to be immoral. That, I imagine, is the vast majority of people in Scotland.

And you seem not to mean represent the 'whole of Scotland' since no one can do that.

That is exactly what the role of PM or FM is - they are expected to represent all of the population, not just the smaller proportion who voted for them. 

Without changing to a presidential system, how do you extend the electorate beyond a party's membership?

When a party is in power, and therefore the election is not just for leader but for PM/FM I think it is better to leave the selection to elected representatives as these people do actually have an electoral mandate. Leaving the selection of a new PM or FM to a membership who have no democratic mandate nor any accountability for their choice isn't the right approach in my opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

I wasn't just talking about her views on gay married but that she considers people who have had sex without being married or have children without being married to be immoral. That, I imagine, is the vast majority of people in Scotland.
That is exactly what the role of PM or FM is - they are expected to represent all of the population, not just the smaller proportion who voted for them. 
When a party is in power, and therefore the election is not just for leader but for PM/FM I think it is better to leave the selection to elected representatives as these people do actually have an electoral mandate. Leaving the selection of a new PM or FM to a membership who have no democratic mandate nor any accountability for their choice isn't the right approach in my opinion.

So you want a smaller electorate to vote for the FM because you think that the bigger electorate is too small. Hmmm..


And yet you were worried earlier about the FM not representative of the SNP.


As for representing the whole of Scotland, you appear to define whole as some magic number but not all, and to suggest that all those who think sex outside marriage is wrong shouldn't be  FM. Seems a bit intolerant to me. Also in theory may apply to Yousaf.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you want a smaller electorate to vote for the FM because you think that the bigger electorate is too small. Hmmm..

Are you being a bit dense - the point about the elected MPs or MSPs is that they are ... err ... elected. So although they may be smaller in number than the membership they have an electoral mandate from numbers way in excess of member numbers. And those individuals are also accountable to the electorate. That's how our democracy works - we elect representative and they are authorised by that electoral process to make decisions. Members have no democratic mandate, nor are they accountable.

As for representing the whole of Scotland, you appear to define whole as some magic number but not all, and to suggest that all those who think sex outside marriage is wrong shouldn't be  FM. Seems a bit intolerant to me.

Not at all - I think Swinney put it really well:

"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."

This concurs with my view - is Forbes entitled to hold the views she does - sure she is.
Is Forbes entitled to express those views - absolutely
Is Forbes entitled to stand for election in the leadership race - yup
If she wins do I think she should be banned from taking up the office - nope, she would have a mandate under the current rules (notwithstanding I'm not sure I agree those rules are very sensible).

But I am just as entitled to hold my own opinion on whether her views mean she is an appropriate person to be FM or not. And my view is that she is not. Nothing intolerant about that whatsoever.