Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

And has Forbes made any indication on those - and  note that areas of protest outside abortion services hasn't been dealt with under Sturgeon.

Just because she might not have made any direct comment on those matters doesn't mean that she shouldn't be expected to be clear on her own personal position and how it would impact her policies were she to become leader.

That she has been clearly vocally anti abortion on public platforms in the past would suggest a starting point that there is a clear risk that she would erode provision, promotion and protection for those attending clinics. It is for her to clearly state her position rather than for us to presume that everything will be OK because she hasn't overtly said they wouldn't be.

[Nearly Sane]

Just because she might not have made any direct comment on those matters doesn't mean that she shouldn't be expected to be clear on her own personal position and how it would impact her policies were she to become leader.

That she has been clearly vocally anti abortion on public platforms in the past would suggest a starting point that there is a clear risk that she would erode provision, promotion and protection for those attending clinics. It is for her to clearly state her position rather than for us to presume that everything will be OK because she hasn't overtly said they wouldn't be.

So you have no evidence that she has any plans to change any stances on this. Or indeed 'gay rights' which you seem to have entirely forgotten about here.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you have no evidence that she has any plans to change any stances on this.

She is standing for leader - she has previously sat on an anti-abortion 'prayer breakfast' platform with Brian Souter during which she stated that progress in society is linked to how that society treats the unborn. Under those circumstances I think it is legitimate that she should be expected to restate her personal views and state the policy positions she would adopt if she because leader. Given her previously expressed personal views (added to her views that her religion is more important than her politics) it would be reasonable to conclude that abortion provision and protections could be at risk until or unless she clearly states otherwise.

Or indeed 'gay rights' which you seem to have entirely forgotten about here.

Similar issues apply - rights for gay people currently are as much about normalisation of genuine equality - in other words the embedding of promotion that cements the view that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are of equal value. A lot of that rests on approaches within education, which are very much a matter for the Scottish parliament. Don't forget that in the late 80s the government did not look to outlaw homosexuality but nonetheless section 28 had a toxic and chilling effect on gay people.

The point is that she needs to be clear on her views and as far as I'm aware she has scrupulously avoided indicating that she supports gay marriage, despite being questioned on it.

Don't you think we have a right to know what her views and policy positions are if she wants to be leader NS?

[Nearly Sane]

She is standing for leader - she has previously sat on an anti-abortion 'prayer breakfast' platform with Brian Souter during which she stated that progress in society is linked to how that society treats the unborn. Under those circumstances I think it is legitimate that she should be expected to restate her personal views and state the policy positions she would adopt if she because leader. Given her previously expressed personal views (added to her views that her religion is more important than her politics) it would be reasonable to conclude that abortion provision and protections would be at risk until or unless she clearly states otherwise.
Similar issues apply - rights for gay people currently are as much about normalisation of genuine equality - in other words the embedding of promotion that cements the view that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are of equal value. A lot of that rests on approaches within education, which are very much a matter for the Scottish parliament. Don't forget that in the late 80s the government did not look to outlaw homosexuality but nonetheless section 28 had a toxic and chilling effect on gay people.

The point is that she needs to be clear on her views and as far as I'm aware she has scrupulously avoided indicating that she supports gay marriage, despite being questioned on it.

Don't you think we have a right to know what her views and policy positions are if she wants to be leader NS?

I didn't say people don't have a right to kniw what she intends to do. So strawman argument from you. And still no evidence of any proposed changes in policy on these areas.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't say people don't have a right to kniw what she intends to do. So strawman argument from you.

Not really as the implication of your posts (as I read them) was that in the absence of a statement to change policy we should accept that she wouldn't. I'm glad that you accept that she needs to address these issues by restating her personal views and her intentions for policy if she became leader.

And still no evidence of any proposed changes in policy on these areas.

And still no evidence that she does not propose to change policy to align with her personal convictions. So, what to do eh - oh yes, let's get her to clearly state her intentions for policies on abortion and gay rights as part of the leadership process. And while we are at it I think she needs to be clear about her personal views on gay marriage. I think it is reasonable for people to know whether someone who wants to be leader considers gay marriages to be legitimate or not, regardless of whether she intends to change policy.

[Nearly Sane]

Not really as the implication of your posts (as I read them) was that in the absence of a statement to change policy we should accept that she wouldn't. I'm glad that you accept that she needs to address these issues by restating her personal views and her intentions for policy if she became leader.
And still no evidence that she does not propose to change policy to align with her personal convictions. So, what to do eh - oh yes, let's get her to clearly state her intentions for policies on abortion and gay rights as part of the leadership process. And while we are at it I think she needs to be clear about her personal views on gay marriage. I think it is reasonable for people to know whether someone who wants to be leader considers gay marriages to be legitimate or not, regardless of whether she intends to change policy.

I asked for evidence that she would change policy. In no way does that imply that she shouldn't be  asked about it. Do you accept that?

And since all I asked was you to show evidence for your idea that she would seek to change policy, you are now trying to reverse the burden of proof.

[ProfessorDavey]

I asked for evidence that she would change policy. In no way does that imply that she shouldn't be  asked about it. Do you accept that?

And since all I asked was you to show evidence for your idea that she would seek to change policy, you are now trying to reverse the burden of proof.

I don't want to be leader of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland - she does. It is for her, not me, to demonstrate her personal and policy positions, not me (not that I could do as I'm obvious not her).

You mentioned Ian Blackford earlier on the basis that he is also a wee free - but the issue isn't specifically her membership of a particular church or religion, but her personal view and how they might play out in policy.

She could, of course, have stated unequivocally that she supports gay marriage and abortion rights, like Blackford. Blackford has also shown his support in deed as well as words, by voting in favour of extending abortion rights and equal marriage to NI.

https://twitter.com/Ianblackford_MP/status/1148535515773362177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Nearly Sane]

I don't want to be leader of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland - she does. It is for her, not me, to demonstrate her personal and policy positions, not me (not that I could do as I'm obvious not her).

You mentioned Ian Blackford earlier on the basis that he is also a wee free - but the issue isn't specifically her membership of a particular church or religion, but her personal view and how they might play out in policy.

She could, of course, have stated unequivocally that she supports gay marriage and abortion rights, like Blackford. Blackford has also shown his support in deed as well as words, by voting in favour of extending abortion rights and equal marriage to NI.

https://twitter.com/Ianblackford_MP/status/1148535515773362177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

It's always up to you to demonstrate your claims. You haven't.

And last time I looked not standing to be FM of Scotland didn't justifh using a strawman.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's always up to you to demonstrate your claims. You haven't.

And what exactly are those claims NS.

I think I have claimed that Forbes has previously expressed anti abortion views in public - I think that is on the public record.

I think I have also claimed that Forbes has not indicted how her personal views might impact her policy decisions if she because leader - again I think that is also true.

I have also expressed an opinion that based on her stated personal views it is legitimate to have concerns that abortion rights could be eroded under her leadership and the way for people to understand whether this concern is real or not is for her to publicly state what her policy intentions are. Given her publicly stated personal views silence on her part simply won't do.

[Nearly Sane]

And what exactly are those claims NS.

I think I have claimed that Forbes has previously expressed anti abortion views in public - I think that is on the public record.

I think I have also claimed that Forbes has not indicted how her personal views might impact her policy decisions if she because leader - again I think that is also true.

I have also expressed an opinion that based on her stated personal views it is legitimate to have concerns that abortion rights could be eroded under her leadership and the way for people to understand whether this concern is real or not is for her to publicly state what her policy intentions are. Given her publicly stated personal views silence on her part simply won't do.

So when you state it is a legitimate concern that abortion rights 'could' be eroded under her leadership - what is your evidence based on her statements for being leader?
*Note anything 'could' happen under any leader so I think you may have to clarify your usage here as not sure it makes much sense.


And when you suggested that I wanted her not to be questioned on her intentiobmns, where is your evidence?

[Aruntraveller]

Forbes has been asked about equall marriage now.

From the BBC:

Ms Forbes, a member of the Free Church of Scotland, was asked whether a man should be able to marry another man.

She says: "Equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment.

"Incidentally though I would hope that others can defend the rights of other minorities, including religious minorities that might take a different view."

She said there was a distinction to be made between personal morality and practice - and a person's political responsibilities as a lawmaker.

" In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practising Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate

[ProfessorDavey]

So when you state it is a legitimate concern that abortion rights 'could' be eroded under her leadership - what is your evidence based on her statements for being leader?

The evidence is in her personal views - she needs to be clear about her policy intentions.

*Note anything 'could' happen under any leader so I think you may have to clarify your usage here as not sure it makes much sense.

Sure in theory anything 'could' happen under any leader. But whether there is a legitimate concern would depend on the evidence of their views on a particular matter. So if someone has publicly stated their supported women's right to abortion (e.g. Blackford) then it would be reaonable to think it unlikely that they would erode women's rights to access abortion. On the other hand if someone had publicly stated at an anti abortion event that they considered progress in society to be linked to protecting the foetus then it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a legitimate concern that they may erode women's rights to access abortion until or unless they clearly stated that that was not their policy intention. While Forbes policy intentions remain unclear that concern remains.

[Nearly Sane]

The evidence is in her personal views - she needs to be clear about her policy intentions.
Sure in theory anything 'could' happen under any leader. But whether there is a legitimate concern would depend on the evidence of their views on a particular matter. So if someone has publicly stated their supported women's right to abortion (e.g. Blackford) then it would be reaonable to think it unlikely that they would erode women's rights to access abortion. On the other hand if someone had publicly stated at an anti abortion event that they considered progress in society to be linked to protecting the foetus then it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a legitimate concern that they may erode women's rights to access abortion until or unless they clearly stated that that was not their policy intention. While Forbes policy intentions remain unclear that concern remains.

No, her personal views are not evidence that she would campaign to change things which is what I asked.

It's good to see you have accepted my question about your use of 'could' but sadly missed that it made your statement worthless.

Odd that you edited out the comment about your strawman. Why did you do that?

[ProfessorDavey]

Forbes has been asked now.

From the BBC:

Ms Forbes, a member of the Free Church of Scotland, was asked whether a man should be able to marry another man.

She says: "Equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment.

"Incidentally though I would hope that others can defend the rights of other minorities, including religious minorities that might take a different view."

She said there was a distinction to be made between personal morality and practice - and a person's political responsibilities as a lawmaker.

" In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practising Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate

Hmm - so nothing on abortion.

And on gay marriage she clearly thinks it is immoral. And living without harassment or fear isn't the same as living with equality and respect.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, her personal views are not evidence that she would campaign to change things which is what I asked.

Nope, but if someone personally strongly supports, for example equality for gay people, you'd expect them to be much more likely to campaign to change the law to promote gay equality than someone who thought that homosexuality was sinful. That is surely obvious.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope, but if someone personally strongly supports, for example equality for gay people, you'd expect them to be much more likely to campaign to change the law to promote gay equality than someone who thought that homosexuality was sinful. That is surely obvious.

I want to know what they would actually do in the position. Their likelihood vs someone who disagrees with their position is not evidence of that. Do you have any evidence of what she would do?

And then you've now edited put my question about editing out stuff previously. Why is that?

[Nearly Sane]

Hmm - so nothing on abortion.

And on gay marriage she clearly thinks it is immoral. And living without harassment or fear isn't the same as living with equality and respect.

I don't respect her religion, are you saying I should?

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't respect her religion, are you saying I should?

Nope, but you aren't wanting to be First Minister of Scotland. And that is a category error - gay people are err, people. Religion is err ... a organisation.

To merely consider that gay people deserve to be able to live and love without harassment or fear is a pretty low bar don't you think.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope, but you aren't wanting to be First Minister of Scotland. And that is a category error - gay people are err, people. Religion is err ... a organisation.

To merely consider that gay people deserve to be able to live and love without harassment or fear is a pretty low bar don't you think.

So you are suggesting that because I don't respect the Wee Free religion, I shouldn't be FM?

And religious people are err religious people.

[ProfessorDavey]

I want to know what they would actually do in the position.

So do I which is why I think she needs to be clear on her personal views and on her intention for policy. Pleased that she is now addressing the issues, albeit with a very a carefully worded 'politician's answer' on gay marriage. I suspect this will be seen as such and she will be pressed to clarify her kind of non answer.

But what about abortion - I doubt that she would come out with something as banning abortion, but as I've pointed out there are many things that can be done to erode abortion rights short of a ban. So:

Will she protect increase funding for abortion clinics.
Will she protect funding to promote abortion services for women who need them
How will she deal with the issue of anti-abortion protesters outside clinics.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you are suggesting that because I don't respect the Wee Free religion, I shouldn't be FM?

Nope, but if you had been publicly overt in your opposition to the wee free religion akin to stating that progress in society should be judged by protecting people from the influence of wee free religion then it would be legitimate to ask whether you had any policy intentions to curtail or restrict that particular organisation.

[Nearly Sane]

So do I which is why I think she needs to be clear on her personal views and on her intention for policy. Pleased that she is now addressing the issues, albeit with a very a carefully worded 'politician's answer' on gay marriage. I suspect this will be seen as such and she will be pressed to clarify her kind of non answer.

But what about abortion - I doubt that she would come out with something as banning abortion, but as I've pointed out there are many things that can be done to erode abortion rights short of a ban. So:

Will she protect increase funding for abortion clinics.
Will she protect funding to promote abortion services for women who need them
How will she deal with the issue of anti-abortion protesters outside clinics.

I don't know. I just have no evidence that she won't. And you have provided none.


And yet again you have chosen to edit out my question about your use of a strawman. I find that you have done that 3 times now and ignored my question about it again disingenuous at best.

[ProfessorDavey]

And religious people are err religious people.

But religions aren't people - they are organisations and issues of respect/equality are not equivalent (or arguably even relevant) when applied to an organisation rather than people.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope, but if you had been publicly overt in your opposition to the wee free religion akin to stating that progress in society should be judged by protecting people from the influence of wee free religion then it would be legitimate to ask whether you had any policy intentions to curtail or restrict that particular organisation.

And you are back at your strawman as regards whether she should be questioned on  what she would do.


And again you've edited my post and in this case ignored tgat religious people are err religious people. Why do you keep editing my posts? Why do you keep ignoring my questions about why you keep editing my posts?

[Nearly Sane]

But religions aren't people - they are organisations and issues of respect/equality are not equivalent (or arguably even relevant) when applied to an organisation rather than people.

Organisations are just made up of people. If I don't respect someone's religious beliefs , how is that difficult from not respecting what someone's beliefs are on sexuality?