Sturgeon to resign as FM

[Nearly Sane]

Been interesting seeing the reactions to Forbes's statements. I think those MSPs who were supporting her but have now withdrawn their support must have bern bafflingly stupid to have not asked her, bafflingly stupid to have known but thought it wouldn't be raised, or astoundingly cowardly to have initially thought it was ok but wilted under the reaction.


 

[ProfessorDavey]

Certainly no 'weasel words'.

She keeps using this term 'practise' rather than view or belief, which I find really weird and clunky, but maybe that is her turn of phrase - it is certainly deliberate. I don't think I've come across anyone else that I can think of that talks of their practise rather than their opinion, their view or their belief.

[Nearly Sane]

'Kate Forbes may have breached SNP rules on transphobia'


In this case Forbes is not the religious loon but is correct.


https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23336504.kate-forbes-may-breached-snp-rules-transphobia/

[Gordon]

John Crace not missing several open goals, starting with the SNP's very own religious extremist problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/21/forbes-doubles-down-and-torpedoes-snp-chances-pass-the-idiot-pills

 

[Nearly Sane]

Two tweets of Pete Wishart. First one yesterday, second today

[Gordon]

That's a good a volte-face as I ever seen.

[Nearly Sane]

Triggered by my thoughts on prayer as a reality TV show on Searching for God and that this, as with all elections now serm like a reality TV show, can't we get it done properly You Could Be FM  with guest stars, and phone ins - all profits going to Michelle Mone.

[ProfessorDavey]

Two tweets of Pete Wishart. First one yesterday, second today

It does seem weird that there are a whole raft of people who genuinely didn't seem to have recognised the nature of Forbes' views until the last 24 hours or so.

Had they just stuck their heads in the sand, knowing full well that her views were 'extreme' to put it mildly. Perhaps hoping that as she is articular and telegenic that this would never come up. In which case naive in the extreme.

Were they simply unaware - it is certainly the case that individuals may have views in their private lives that people they work with would be unaware of. Certainly I doubt many people where I work would be aware that I'm atheist. But surely when Forbes' was appointed to ministerial office the standard 'is there anything in your background or your views that were they to come out would bring the office/government into disrespect'. Was this never asked - was it asked but she just failed to mention that she was anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-sex before marriage, ant-children born out of wedlock.

Maybe they knew all along but didn't anticipate the possibility that rather than address these matters as private views, that she would use her campaign to evangelise and claim victim status on the (non-sense) notion that being religious is a bar to holding high office.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What nonsense.

I suppose Thatcher was a good call then:

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/margaret-thatcher-the-politician-and-christian/32082.htm

Thatcher's take on Christianity was expounded in her famous sermon on the mound where it wasn't so much Thatcher exposed as a latter christian but Jesus announced as a proto Thatcherite.

Scots should vote labour.

[Nearly Sane]

Thatcher's take on Christianity was expounded in her famous sermon on the mound where it wasn't so much Thatcher exposed as a latter christian but Jesus announced as a proto Thatcherite.

oh look the No True Samaritan fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

oh look the No True Samaritan fallacy.

There is a school of thought which is perhaps the most sensible that one's Christianity is only really known by god and the individual. Given that, whatever Thatcher's Christian spiritual status, she held a theology that was er, Thatcherite. For example, the poor were categorically not blessed......Her Kingdom was definitely of this Earth.

[jeremyp]

Certainly no 'weasel words'.

I don't know what the reporter's problem was. I think she made her views quite plain to him. I understand exactly where she stands on the issue of children outside marriage.

[Nearly Sane]

There is a school of thought which is perhaps the most sensible that one's Christianity is only really known by god and the individual. Given that, whatever Thatcher's Christian spiritual status, she held a theology that was er, Thatcherite. For example, the poor were categorically not blessed......Her Kingdom was definitely of this Earth.

If it's known to God and the individual, then you cannot even answer for you so the entire idea of attributing ant acts to a group is meaningless.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know what the reporter's problem was. I think she made her views quite plain to him. I understand exactly where she stands on the issue of children outside marriage.

The 'weasel words' was in reference to Prof D's statement that she had been using them.

[jeremyp]

There is a school of thought which is perhaps the most sensible that one's Christianity is only really known by god and the individual. Given that, whatever Thatcher's Christian spiritual status, she held a theology that was er, Thatcherite. For example, the poor were categorically not blessed......Her Kingdom was definitely of this Earth.

What's the relevance of Margaret Thatcher to this thread? Is she standing for First Minister?

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't know what the reporter's problem was. I think she made her views quite plain to him. I understand exactly where she stands on the issue of children outside marriage.

Nope I think here again there are the weasel words in which she is unable to say that something is her view. She uses a range of phrases that somehow detach what is, in effect, her view from being about her. So:

'This is what I practice - nope it is your view
'My faith would say that' - nope it is your view
And when specifically asked what her 'view' is, her reply 'that is the approach I would practise'
And when specifically asked whether she thinks it is wrong. her reply 'it would be wrong according to my faith'

It is as if she is trying to give the impression that none of this is her choice, her decision, her view - somehow that it is something kind of foisted on her - my faith would say that - nope Kate it is your choice to either accept the teachings of your religion or not, but whichever way you go you own those decisions and those views - they aren't some kind of detached thing separate from her. It is almost like those people who talk about themselves in the third person.

Basically she seems unable or unwilling to describe anything as her view even when specifically asked if something is her view.

So, yes we all know what she means, but that doesn't mean that she isn't using weasel words to try to detach her views from being ... err ... her views.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope I think here again there are the weasel words in which she is unable to say that something is her view. She uses a range of phrases that somehow detach what is, in effect, her view from being about her. So:

'This is what I practice - nope it is your view
'My faith would say that' - nope it is your view
And when specifically asked what her 'view' is, her reply 'that is the approach I would practise'
And when specifically asked whether she thinks it is wrong. her reply 'it would be wrong according to my faith'

It is as if she is trying to give the impression that none of this is her choice, her decision, her view - somehow that it is something kind of foisted on her - my faith would say that - nope Kate it is your choice to either accept the teachings of your religion or not, but whichever way you go you own those decisions and those views - they aren't some kind of detached thing separate from her. It is almost like those people who talk about themselves in the third person.

Basically she seems unable or unwilling to describe anything as her view even when specifically asked if something is her view.

So, yes we all know what she means, but that doesn't mean that she isn't using weasel words to try to detach her views from being ... err ... her views.

I think that saying what you do is much less of weasally than saying what your view is.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that saying what you do is much less of weasally than saying what your view is.

But they aren't the same thing are they - I may practise karate, but that tell you nothing about what my views are other martial arts.

That she personally practices sex only within marriage isn't an answer to the question she is being asked, which is what her view is on sex outside of marriage. And when specifically pushed on her view she answers 'that is the approach I would practise'. That isn't an answer.

And when specifically asked whether she thinks sex outside of marriage is wrong she answers 'it would be wrong according to my faith', as if her faith is somehow something entirely detached from her.

[Nearly Sane]

But they aren't the same thing are they - I may practise karate, but that tell you nothing about what my views are other martial arts.

That she personally practices sex only within marriage isn't an answer to the question she is being asked, which is what her view is on sex outside of marriage. And when specifically pushed on her view she answers 'that is the approach I would practise'. That isn't an answer.

And when specifically asked whether she thinks sex outside of marriage is wrong she answers 'it would be wrong according to my faith', as if her faith is somehow something entirely detached from her.

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


We are talking about a case where no one, including you, seems in any doubt about what she is saying, to the extent that it's torpedoed her chances, and led supporters who seemed immune to her positions before to run away.

[Aruntraveller]

I've said it before and no doubt I'll say it again, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is one hell of bigoted, self-serving politician. And in this case also suffering from myopia.

[Nearly Sane]

I've said it before and no doubt I'll say it again, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is one hell of bigoted, self-serving politician. And in this case also suffering from myopia.

Are you suggesting that Forbes is doing this out of wanting to be elected but getting it wrong?

[Aruntraveller]

Are you suggesting that Forbes is doing this out of wanting to be elected but getting it wrong?

Isn't that what a lot of politicians do?

[ProfessorDavey]

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

My view is that they are different.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

It is not an approach that I would practise.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

My academic training would say that they are different.