A bonailie, Nicola

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Well she's an evangelical Christian, so she's politely saying that we can all think what we want, but explaining what is actually right.

I thought this was an interesting take on it, especially for those who can't conceive of simultaneously thinking something is wrong - a sin - and none of the business of the state (not Forbes in this case, but anyway).

https://twitter.com/jonpayates/status/1628130329918869504?t=YrLKzvh736v3DPPIw3WiaQ&s=19

Er, bollocks.

Or at best extremely charitable. She is clearly saying same sex marriage is wrong, but she's law abiding, so accepts it. This means (a) she wouldn't have voted for it (also clearly stated today) and (b) by extension, as a leader, wouldn't have legislated for it.

What other hyper conservative views might play out in the same way? Access to contraception perhaps?

If you are generally liberal, which our society mostly is, this is something that one can legitimately oppose, without being illiberal. This being a democracy, if she represents a minority view - which she does - she's not electable. Tough titty.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

Jezyboy said:

Well yea, but she does, so I think it is preferable that she is honest about it.

Oh yes, fair play to her for being honest about what role she thinks her religion plays in her politics.

Find it weird that people think it's perfectly acceptable to proselytise for a particular set of unprovable political beliefs but as soon as the G word is mentioned they start hyperventilating about how someone with beliefs like that shouldn't be allowed to hold political office.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Jezyboy said:

Well yea, but she does, so I think it is preferable that she is honest about it.

Oh yes, fair play to her for being honest about what role she thinks her religion plays in her politics.

Find it weird that people think it's perfectly acceptable to proselytise for a particular set of unprovable political beliefs but as soon as the G word is mentioned they start hyperventilating about how someone with beliefs like that shouldn't be allowed to hold political office.

It's fine for people with any beliefs to hold office if they can get elected.

But why would a liberal party give the leadership to someone socially conservative who says they would vote that way?

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Jezyboy said:

Well yea, but she does, so I think it is preferable that she is honest about it.

Oh yes, fair play to her for being honest about what role she thinks her religion plays in her politics.

Find it weird that people think it's perfectly acceptable to proselytise for a particular set of unprovable political beliefs but as soon as the G word is mentioned they start hyperventilating about how someone with beliefs like that shouldn't be allowed to hold political office.

It's fine for people with any beliefs to hold office if they can get elected.

But why would a liberal party give the leadership to someone socially conservative who says they would vote that way?

I guess I have never thought of the SNP as an overtly liberal party. They're nationalists, with a variety of other beliefs. One of the many problems with Nats.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Jezyboy said:

Well yea, but she does, so I think it is preferable that she is honest about it.

Oh yes, fair play to her for being honest about what role she thinks her religion plays in her politics.

Find it weird that people think it's perfectly acceptable to proselytise for a particular set of unprovable political beliefs but as soon as the G word is mentioned they start hyperventilating about how someone with beliefs like that shouldn't be allowed to hold political office.

It's fine for people with any beliefs to hold office if they can get elected.

But why would a liberal party give the leadership to someone socially conservative who says they would vote that way?

I guess I have never thought of the SNP as an overtly liberal party. They're nationalists, with a variety of other beliefs. One of the many problems with Nats.

They aren't, particularly, they are populists. And had to do a deal with the Greens, who make no mistake are nutters.

Lots of politicians are religious. Not many are stupid enough to ram it down people's throats and indicate that some niche set of beliefs informs your political beliefs. And she genuinely doesn't seem to have known that her views aren't mainstream.

Anyway, if the first thing you say when you enter a room is that you are a Second Coming of Zarquonist, people are likely to talk about Zarquon. That's life.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Jezyboy said:

Well yea, but she does, so I think it is preferable that she is honest about it.

Oh yes, fair play to her for being honest about what role she thinks her religion plays in her politics.

Find it weird that people think it's perfectly acceptable to proselytise for a particular set of unprovable political beliefs but as soon as the G word is mentioned they start hyperventilating about how someone with beliefs like that shouldn't be allowed to hold political office.

It's fine for people with any beliefs to hold office if they can get elected.

But why would a liberal party give the leadership to someone socially conservative who says they would vote that way?

I guess I have never thought of the SNP as an overtly liberal party. They're nationalists, with a variety of other beliefs. One of the many problems with Nats.

They aren't, particularly, they are populists. And had to do a deal with the Greens, who make no mistake are nutters.

Lots of politicians are religious. Not many are stupid enough to ram it down people's throats and indicate that some niche set of beliefs informs your political beliefs. And she genuinely doesn't seem to have known that her views aren't mainstream.

Anyway, if the first thing you say when you enter a room is that you are a Second Coming of Zarquonist, people are likely to talk about Zarquon. That's life.

Again I don't think it's a problem being open about how your beliefs - religious or secular - affect your actions. It's then up to voters to take a view on whether they approve of the whole package or not. I do think she needed to give more thought to how those views were presented but I think that's largely down to a shared nationalism papering over a lot of internal contradictions that just aren't easy to reconcile.

morstar

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Jezyboy said:

Well yea, but she does, so I think it is preferable that she is honest about it.

Oh yes, fair play to her for being honest about what role she thinks her religion plays in her politics.

Find it weird that people think it's perfectly acceptable to proselytise for a particular set of unprovable political beliefs but as soon as the G word is mentioned they start hyperventilating about how someone with beliefs like that shouldn't be allowed to hold political office.

It's fine for people with any beliefs to hold office if they can get elected.

But why would a liberal party give the leadership to someone socially conservative who says they would vote that way?

I guess I have never thought of the SNP as an overtly liberal party. They're nationalists, with a variety of other beliefs. One of the many problems with Nats.

They aren't, particularly, they are populists. And had to do a deal with the Greens, who make no mistake are nutters.

Lots of politicians are religious. Not many are stupid enough to ram it down people's throats and indicate that some niche set of beliefs informs your political beliefs. And she genuinely doesn't seem to have known that her views aren't mainstream.

Anyway, if the first thing you say when you enter a room is that you are a Second Coming of Zarquonist, people are likely to talk about Zarquon. That's life.

Again I don't think it's a problem being open about how your beliefs - religious or secular - affect your actions. It's then up to voters to take a view on whether they approve of the whole package or not. I do think she needed to give more thought to how those views were presented but I think that's largely down to a shared nationalism papering over a lot of internal contradictions that just aren't easy to reconcile.

Is this the Brexit thread?

rjsterry

🤨

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Jezyboy said:

Well yea, but she does, so I think it is preferable that she is honest about it.

Oh yes, fair play to her for being honest about what role she thinks her religion plays in her politics.

Find it weird that people think it's perfectly acceptable to proselytise for a particular set of unprovable political beliefs but as soon as the G word is mentioned they start hyperventilating about how someone with beliefs like that shouldn't be allowed to hold political office.

It's fine for people with any beliefs to hold office if they can get elected.

But why would a liberal party give the leadership to someone socially conservative who says they would vote that way?

I guess I have never thought of the SNP as an overtly liberal party. They're nationalists, with a variety of other beliefs. One of the many problems with Nats.

They aren't, particularly, they are populists. And had to do a deal with the Greens, who make no mistake are nutters.

Lots of politicians are religious. Not many are stupid enough to ram it down people's throats and indicate that some niche set of beliefs informs your political beliefs. And she genuinely doesn't seem to have known that her views aren't mainstream.

Anyway, if the first thing you say when you enter a room is that you are a Second Coming of Zarquonist, people are likely to talk about Zarquon. That's life.

Again I don't think it's a problem being open about how your beliefs - religious or secular - affect your actions. It's then up to voters to take a view on whether they approve of the whole package or not. I do think she needed to give more thought to how those views were presented but I think that's largely down to a shared nationalism papering over a lot of internal contradictions that just aren't easy to reconcile.

Yep, it just happens that in this case the beliefs themselves are not palatable to most of her party or the electorate, so she's pretty much ended her political career.

The person most likely to be the next leader is a practicing Muslim, but that's not an issue for anyone because he isn't a fundamentalist nut job like Kate Forbes.

briantrumpet

Seems to sum it up reasonably well, unlike Fraser Nelson who just pretends it's an attack on Christian faith.

https://twitter.com/MhairiBlack/status/1629125518007189504

First.Aspect

I think she'll be elected though. because the SNP membership really is that stupid.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

I think she'll be elected though. because the SNP membership really is that stupid.

I guess a lot of them used to be Labour voters.

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

I think she'll be elected though. because the SNP membership really is that stupid.

I guess a lot of them used to be Labour voters.

Yup

What really bothers me about all of this is that there are calls within the SNP to stop all of the arguments, because it is damaging the cause.

So let's not worry about policies, in case it gets in the way of the policy.

Stevo_666

Saw in the news that one of the candidates thinks she can declare independence if the SNP win a majority of seats at the next election. Not sure if she's deluded or just bullshitting.

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

Saw in the news that one of the candidates thinks she can declare independence if the SNP win a majority of seats atthe next election. Not sure if she's deluded or just bullshitting.

Playing to the audience. Who are thickos.

skyblueamateur

Put it in the side of the bus. That’s usually where nonsensical, populist bollocks go isn’t it?

Stevo_666

skyblueamateur said:

Put it in the side of the bus. That’s usually where nonsensical, populist bollocks go isn’t it?

I guess so.

skyblueamateur

Stevo_666 said:

skyblueamateur said:

Put it in the side of the bus. That’s usually where nonsensical, populist bollocks go isn’t it?

I guess so.

Not particularly populist. They both got hammered.

Stevo_666

skyblueamateur said:

Stevo_666 said:

skyblueamateur said:

Put it in the side of the bus. That’s usually where nonsensical, populist bollocks go isn’t it?

I guess so.

Not particularly populist. They both got hammered.

Failed populism, eh?

skyblueamateur

Stevo_666 said:

skyblueamateur said:

Stevo_666 said:

skyblueamateur said:

Put it in the side of the bus. That’s usually where nonsensical, populist bollocks go isn’t it?

I guess so.

Not particularly populist. They both got hammered.

Failed populism, eh?

Corbyn, mental populism.

Can’t really argue with the sentiment of the LD’s slogan.

Better than the £350 million nonsense.

‘Tomatoes are for tw@ts. Eat Turnips’ would get my vote.

Stevo_666

skyblueamateur said:

Stevo_666 said:

skyblueamateur said:

Stevo_666 said:

skyblueamateur said:

Put it in the side of the bus. That’s usually where nonsensical, populist bollocks go isn’t it?

I guess so.

Not particularly populist. They both got hammered.

Failed populism, eh?

Corbyn, mental populism.

Can’t really argue with the sentiment of the LD’s slogan.

Better than the £350 million nonsense.

‘Tomatoes are for tw@ts. Eat Turnips’ would get my vote.

Just goes to show that all parties put empty slogans on the side of buses.

Jezyboy

I'd argue that there's quite a difference between empty slogans, and outright barefaced lies...

Stevo_666

Jezyboy said:

I'd argue that there's quite a difference between empty slogans, and outright barefaced lies...

I agree.

The UK gross contribution to the EU budget in 2016 was around £19bn in 2016, which works out at pretty close to the £350m a week.

NHS spending in 2015/16 was £141bn compared to a budget of £180bn for 2022/23 - an increase of £39bn.
https://kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

What barefaced lie are you referring to?

sungod

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

I'd argue that there's quite a difference between empty slogans, and outright barefaced lies...

I agree.

The UK gross contribution to the EU budget in 2016 was around £19bn in 2016, which works out at pretty close to the £350m a week.

NHS spending in 2015/16 was £141bn compared to a budget of £180bn for 2022/23 - an increase of £39bn.
https://kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

What barefaced lie are you referring to?

The UK Statistics Authority wrote to Vote Leave during the campaign stating the claim was, ‘misleading and undermines trust in official statistics’. The claim excluded the UK’s rebate, as well as payments received by the UK from the EU.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

I'd argue that there's quite a difference between empty slogans, and outright barefaced lies...

I agree.

The UK gross contribution to the EU budget in 2016 was around £19bn in 2016, which works out at pretty close to the £350m a week.

NHS spending in 2015/16 was £141bn compared to a budget of £180bn for 2022/23 - an increase of £39bn.
https://kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

What barefaced lie are you referring to?

Not really a good look on you if you don’t know the difference between gross and net.

When you pay for a pint with a £20 you’re not sending £20 to the pub are you?

Stevo_666

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

I'd argue that there's quite a difference between empty slogans, and outright barefaced lies...

I agree.

The UK gross contribution to the EU budget in 2016 was around £19bn in 2016, which works out at pretty close to the £350m a week.

NHS spending in 2015/16 was £141bn compared to a budget of £180bn for 2022/23 - an increase of £39bn.
https://kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

What barefaced lie are you referring to?

The UK Statistics Authority wrote to Vote Leave during the campaign stating the claim was, ‘misleading and undermines trust in official statistics’. The claim excluded the UK’s rebate, as well as payments received by the UK from the EU.

Tbh I had assumed it was a load of old balls put out there for electioneering, but when I looked at the stats today it didn't seem to be the case. Which of the numbers I posted/linked above do you disagree with and why?

sungod

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

I'd argue that there's quite a difference between empty slogans, and outright barefaced lies...

I agree.

The UK gross contribution to the EU budget in 2016 was around £19bn in 2016, which works out at pretty close to the £350m a week.

NHS spending in 2015/16 was £141bn compared to a budget of £180bn for 2022/23 - an increase of £39bn.
https://kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

What barefaced lie are you referring to?

The UK Statistics Authority wrote to Vote Leave during the campaign stating the claim was, ‘misleading and undermines trust in official statistics’. The claim excluded the UK’s rebate, as well as payments received by the UK from the EU.

Tbh I had assumed it was a load of old balls put out there for electioneering, but when I looked at the stats today it didn't seem to be the case. Which of the numbers I posted/linked above do you disagree with and why?

if you're claiming to be too stupid to understand, there's no point wasting time on you

Stevo_666

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

I'd argue that there's quite a difference between empty slogans, and outright barefaced lies...

I agree.

The UK gross contribution to the EU budget in 2016 was around £19bn in 2016, which works out at pretty close to the £350m a week.

NHS spending in 2015/16 was £141bn compared to a budget of £180bn for 2022/23 - an increase of £39bn.
https://kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

What barefaced lie are you referring to?

The UK Statistics Authority wrote to Vote Leave during the campaign stating the claim was, ‘misleading and undermines trust in official statistics’. The claim excluded the UK’s rebate, as well as payments received by the UK from the EU.

Tbh I had assumed it was a load of old balls put out there for electioneering, but when I looked at the stats today it didn't seem to be the case. Which of the numbers I posted/linked above do you disagree with and why?

if you're claiming to be too stupid to understand, there's no point wasting time on you

No, I'm asking you to provide evidence to counter what I posted/linked above. If you're too stupid or lazy then I guess you won't do that.

pinno

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

I'd argue that there's quite a difference between empty slogans, and outright barefaced lies...

I agree.

The UK gross contribution to the EU budget in 2016 was around £19bn in 2016, which works out at pretty close to the £350m a week.

NHS spending in 2015/16 was £141bn compared to a budget of £180bn for 2022/23 - an increase of £39bn.
https://kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

What barefaced lie are you referring to?

The UK Statistics Authority wrote to Vote Leave during the campaign stating the claim was, ‘misleading and undermines trust in official statistics’. The claim excluded the UK’s rebate, as well as payments received by the UK from the EU.

Tbh I had assumed it was a load of old balls put out there for electioneering, but when I looked at the stats today it didn't seem to be the case. Which of the numbers I posted/linked above do you disagree with and why?

if you're claiming to be too stupid to understand, there's no point wasting time on you

No, I'm asking you to provide evidence to counter what I posted/linked above. If you're too stupid or lazy then I guess you won't do that.

"...the estimated value of the UK's rebate in 2015 is €5.6 billion (£4.4 billion) compared with €5.9 billion (£4.7 billion) in the 2014 EU Budget."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483344/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf

£19m - £4.4m = approx. £280m per week.

pinno

...but the less one dimensional argument is the cost of leaving the EU:

https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-june-2022

The Centre for European Reform estimates that leaving the single market and customs union has reduced UK trade in goods by £10 billion or 13.5 per cent in May 2022...