Forum List | Politics Forum
| Topic: Kate Forbes |
|---|
| 1. Author: hurricane_jimmy Date: Fri 3rd Jul 2026. 22:18 Getting a few articles in my feed about her greetin` that her archaic Christian views stopped her being FM when she was a "shoe in". To be fair, she has a point that Humza`s Islamic belief set want all that different. Personally though, I can`t stand the Judeo-Christian- and Islamic- mythologies and would say anyone that believes as deeply in it as Forbes, Humza or Sarwar should be nowhere near political power, particularly when the Scottish census shows the majority are "non-religious". Curious - how big a deal is this being portrayed as by STV & BBC Scotland? Forbes also seems to think that she has mass public support - seems a bit delusional? Reply |
| 2. Author: Dave_1885 Date: Fri 3rd Jul 2026. 23:52 A person that follows religious ideology that discriminates against numerous people they wish to rule seeming delusional? Would never have guessed 😂 Reply |
| 3. Author: NMCmassive Date: Fri 3rd Jul 2026. 23:52 I don’t know about mass public support like. She will have some localised support and tbh she probably was IMO the best candidate at the time. The way she was portrayed and treated was terrible though. They absolutely F’d her then glossed over Humza. Somehow none of his questionable Islamic beliefs were questioned apart from a token question with a token answer. Folk will tell you that everything in the media is against the SNP but Nicola and co always wanted Humza in place and the media ran in that direction accordingly. COYP Reply |
| 4. Author: AdamAntsParsStripe Date: Sat 4th Jul 2026. 01:18 Her personal beliefs would not have been an issue if she was elected as leader. She already stated that the will of parliament was paramount in any legislation even if it ran against her beliefs. Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte  Reply |
| 5. Author: hurricane_jimmy Date: Sat 4th Jul 2026. 11:06 The thing is AAPS, they all say that. Kate Forbes represented a constituency (Skye & Lochaber?) and I think it`s fair to say that her `Y`all Qaeda" Christian views (learned this term from an American pal who worked on the Sanders campaign) would only be shared by a tiny fraction of her constituents. Yet, she stated quite clearly that she could not have voted for the Equal Marriage Bill. For me, that explicitly contradicts what you say about her not letting her views affect her representation of the public because she`s voting based on her own conscience rather than with the will of her constituents. Granted, there is the argument that she was elected by said constituents, but were they fully aware of the extremity of her Christianity? And I would of course apply the same argument to Humza, Sarwar or anybody else who follows the monotheistic religions. Reply |
| 6. Author: jake89 Date: Sat 4th Jul 2026. 19:24 Humza wouldn`t vote for same sex marriage either. If your religion impacts on your ability to apply common sense to policy, you should not be an MSP. Reply |
| 7. Author: hurricane_jimmy Date: Sat 4th Jul 2026. 20:08 Exactly. That`s why he should never have been FM. Honestly, I find it a bit crazy that the two leading SNP candidates were religious when the majority of the country isn`t. Cherry would have been the best choice, but it`s quite clear now that the Murrells were keeping her out of Holyrood to prevent her asking awkward questions... Reply |
| 8. Author: AdamAntsParsStripe Date: Sat 4th Jul 2026. 21:13 hurricane_jimmy, Sat 4 Jul 11:06 She is only one member out of 129 MSP’s She could abstain (as Humza and Anas did) I think she would have been a great FM personally and nothing to do with her personal faith. Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte Reply |
| 9. Author: jake89 Date: Sat 4th Jul 2026. 22:36 It`s not about being religious. It`s about being unable to put it to one side for the good of the people you represent. It`s the same with people who use the "it`s my religion" excuse to be a dick. No-one forces you to follow a religion and most of the customs are modern inventions or existed because of circumstances at the time. Reply |
| 10. Author: DBA Date: Sun 5th Jul 2026. 00:28 hurricane_jimmy, Sat 4 Jul 20:08 You believe Cherry was kept out because of Sturgeon/Murrell? Really? Cherry did that all by herself. Can`t believe anyone truly believes she was credible tbh. Reply |
| 11. Author: hurricane_jimmy Date: Sun 5th Jul 2026. 07:51 Cherry was pushed aside as she was seen as a threat to Sturgeon`s leadership and was pushing for answers on the SNP finances. On top of that, you had the trans-rights zealots jumping on her because she said the Gender Recognition Bill would create legal conflicts for Womens' rights. Not sure how you can claim a KC Lawyer, who successfully scuppered Boris Johnson`s proroguing of Parliament is "not credible" - she`d have been a highly capable First Minister and a real headache for Westminster. As for the trans-rights issue, again, a lawyer of that standing might be worth listening too - law is widely open to interpretation and isn't as black and white as many like to think. Post Edited (Sun 05 Jul 07:54) Reply |
| 12. Author: jake89 Date: Sun 5th Jul 2026. 12:42 Cherry was punted because she didn`t agree with what the party was focussed on. Reply |
| 13. Author: NMCmassive Date: Sun 5th Jul 2026. 19:23 I always thought she was punted because she spoke up about failings at leadership level while being a threat to Sturgeon’s position. Considering everything that’s happened since.. Cherry was right to raise the alarm bells COYP Reply |
Your Message:
By using your account you have implicitly accepted the DAFC.net Forum Rules and agree to be bound by them. You also agree that you will take sole responsibility for your post and indemnify dafc.net on all matters and costs. Refrain from making any potentially libelous comments about anyone
- - -