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.