bickster Posted March 16, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 16, 2023 So today it was announced that SNP membership is down 40% on it's 2019 peak, which might give an indication as to why Sturgeon resigned, or not, who knows. I've not really followed the leadership election much because it's of little interest. There was obviously the religious nut candidate and the other two. I've detected quite a bit of dislike from Scottish voters for this guy but after this you really do have to think he's a bit of a tit at the very least. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 16, 2023 Share Posted March 16, 2023 8 minutes ago, bickster said: So today it was announced that SNP membership is down 40% on it's 2019 peak, which might give an indication as to why Sturgeon resigned, or not, who knows. I've not really followed the leadership election much because it's of little interest. There was obviously the religious nut candidate and the other two. I've detected quite a bit of dislike from Scottish voters for this guy but after this you really do have to think he's a bit of a tit at the very least. Someone who knows more about it all than I do has suggested that if Yousaf wins (and he almost certainly will) then the SNP will become incredibly unpopular, incredibly quickly. Whereas if Forbes wins, the party will literally split into two. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 16, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 16, 2023 2 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Someone who knows more about it all than I do has suggested that if Yousaf wins (and he almost certainly will) then the SNP will become incredibly unpopular, incredibly quickly. Whereas if Forbes wins, the party will literally split into two. Is Forbes the religious one? What about the other candidate? Is he really favourite? Seems like a right bellend tbh, why would they ch..... no forget I said that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted March 17, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 17, 2023 11 minutes ago, bickster said: Is Forbes the religious one? What about the other candidate? Is he really favourite? Seems like a right bellend tbh, why would they ch..... no forget I said that Humza is a walking gaffe machine, Forbes (would vote against gay marriage) currently leading polling, Regan has looked like she’s just there to make up the numbers. Both women are currently asking for independent foreign oversight of the election as they don’t believe it will not be tampered with in some way. The whole thing is a protracted car crash and is giving every indication of being the end of the SNP’s dominance in Scottish politics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 15 minutes ago, bickster said: Is Forbes the religious one? What about the other candidate? Is he really favourite? Seems like a right bellend tbh, why would they ch..... no forget I said that She is. The other candidate (Ash Regan) might as well not be standing. She'll probably scrape double figures in vote share. He is. They're in a bit of a bind in that he is much more popular with SNP members, she is much more popular with voters. So he'll win, and the country will resent the SNP for it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 9 hours ago, bickster said: So today it was announced that SNP membership is down 40% on it's 2019 peak, which might give an indication as to why Sturgeon resigned, or not, who knows. I've not really followed the leadership election much because it's of little interest. There was obviously the religious nut candidate and the other two. I've detected quite a bit of dislike from Scottish voters for this guy but after this you really do have to think he's a bit of a tit at the very least. I have been watching it closely for a while, not sure why but I find them amusing. The membership numbers, it seems they (SNP) have been making them up for a while but nobody it seems, even the SNP leadership knew it was so bad. The reason they were released was becasue the 2 women candidates allege the FM vote is heavily rigged in favor of the Humza idiot. Every post he has held has ended in Disaster. My interest is mostly about the currency and economics of it, apparently the SNP can create and introduce a currency in 90 days. How, they don't know this bit apart from a Central bank creation and that's it. Kate Forbes and Ash Regan are the 2 birds, Forbes is the Religious nut, which is a shame as she is quite intelligent apart from that and the independence thing, she is quite delusional about independence. She has historical precedent on her side (Its made up or just in her head)and just needs to enact some magic spell and its done, apparently WM cannot stop it. OK. Regan is the "I will make, force or stamp my feet to make WM negotiate with me and we will be independent in a few months or so, mental case. The 90 day currency academic. They all agree and have said so in the hustings that the SNP have been awful in government, specifically the SNHS. Their words not mine. The SNP is a bit of a joke to be fair and they will cease to exist in 5 years I suspect. Even though Sturgeon always lied, they believed her, no-one believes these 3, it was all fairy tales after all. They have 38% of the vote at the moment. Sturgeon said a few weeks ago, the SNP has a majority of support in Scotland. They have gone full trump now and blame the media for telling the truth. Horrible corrupt political party IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 (edited) 9 hours ago, bickster said: There was obviously the religious nut candidate and the other two. I'm just curious why the Christian woman is described as a religious nut ..but the practising Muslim , is described as part of "the other two" does this mean we should expect your VT name to change to Steven Demetre Georgiou at some point as you embrace Islam Edit : same Q for @Amsterdam_Neil_D Edited March 17, 2023 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 17, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 17, 2023 Just now, tonyh29 said: I'm just curious why the Christian woman is described as a religious nut ..but the practising Muslim , is described as part of "the other two" Because that's all I know. I had no idea he was a practising Muslim. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 1 minute ago, tonyh29 said: I'm just curious why the Christian woman is described as a religious nut ..but the practising Muslim I don't believe anyone who really properly 100% believes in any God can be 100% trusted in any Government to be fair but that's just me, Humza specifically, he wont vote on certain issues becasue of his religion so I don't see how it would work EG Gay Marriage is such an easy question, can't answer it. He's just a bad politician first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 18 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said: I don't believe anyone who really properly 100% believes in any God can be 100% trusted in any Government to be fair but that's just me, Humza specifically, he wont vote on certain issues becasue of his religion so I don't see how it would work EG Gay Marriage is such an easy question, can't answer it. He's just a bad politician first. well the question really was why is Forbes " the religious nut " and not both Forbes and Humza , seeing as they are both religious ( maybe even Regan as well but tbh I know nothing at all about him) but i sorta get what you are saying . This isn't an anti Muslim rant , I just find it interesting how both candidates are kinda coming from the same place , but one has possibly "blown their chances" according to the stories linked to in this thread , whereas the other persons view hasn't even registered with people ( see Bicks comment) Religious Nutter 1 said she wouldn't vote for same sex marriage , but will abide by the decision of the parliament , yet that was enough for most people dismissal of a person for belonging to a Church , even though we have Christianity at the root of our democracy Religious Nutter 2 said said he would vote for it , but went awol on advice of his cleric but said he would abide by the decision of the parliament .. and that was the end of that going back to your God comment ... I'm not religious , but I don't think I'd be overly bothered if my countries leader was , as long as they aren't forcing any ideological shit as part of their agenda .... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 (edited) 37 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I'm just curious why the Christian woman is described as a religious nut ..but the practising Muslim , is described as part of "the other two" Presumably because she's said that her faith would influence the way that she legislates, whereas he's at least said that it wouldn't. I think that if he'd answered the question in the same way she did, he'd probably receive the same criticism. So credit to her for not giving the easy, politician answer to make the question go away. But then don't get upset if potential voters use that information in deciding whether or not they want you as leader of their country. edit - as per your follow up post, people aren't bothered if their leaders are religious (Blair? May? Sunak?), but they do mind if it encroaches on the job that they're doing. Forbes suggested that it would for her, Yousaf suggested that it wouldn't for him. Edited March 17, 2023 by ml1dch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 I think the media are kind of asking the wrong questions of Forbes. Whether she supports equal marriage and abortions are a bit of a moot point. She's voted against both of them so the evidence is there. What they need to be asking her is if she was elected whether those bills would even have reached the parliament for a vote or if her freedom of concience would have denied people the right to theirs. Personally, I think calling her a "religious nut" when she did at least have the "courage" to where her prejudice openly...The other guy just hid in a hole for the day and didn't bother to turn up to vote. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 29 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Presumably because she's said that her faith would influence the way that she legislates, whereas he's at least said that it wouldn't. I think that if he'd answered the question in the same way she did, he'd probably receive the same criticism. I wasn't aware she had said that her faith would influence the way she legislates so that does explain some of the criticism quite well , thanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 17, 2023 Author Share Posted March 17, 2023 (edited) Isn’t this disastrously reduced membership for the SNP bringing them down to the point where their membership as a proportion of the eligible electorate is now only 3 times better than that of labour or the tories? Can’t say I pay too much heed to party numbers as its so skewed anyway once you allow Russians, businesses, and unions to top up the coffers. But my curiosity was because it was such a strong piece on the BBC for quite a few minutes about the disastrous crash in membership numbers. Sure enough, a quick check and this disastrous crash left them with more members (relatively) than the main two parties. I know nothing about the three candidates, other than they prove my point upstream in the thread that the SNP is an umbrella organisation that puts one thing ahead of all others, that, just as the Chancellor announced this week, independence is better than dependence. Edited March 17, 2023 by chrisp65 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 29 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: Personally, I think calling her a "religious nut" when she did at least have the "courage" to where her prejudice openly...The other guy just hid in a hole for the day and didn't bother to turn up to vote. Good point to be fair. I just don't think it's a good look if people are super religious in politics, if they can be scammed by religion and believing in God then anything is possible, but I admit I have an odd way of looking at it. Its a bit like a Finance minister saying he is going to receive a trunk of Gold from Nigeria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: crash in membership numbers. Its not so much the numbers, its the reason for their release. 2 of the FM candidates are pretty sure that the contest is rigged from inside the SNP so they wanted the numbers to see how many people could vote. (A great look, calling your own party corrupt) It's the sudden drop as well though, either the numbers were inflated or there is some acceptance that Indy is truly dead within the membership, bit of both I suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I wasn't aware she had said that her faith would influence the way she legislates so that does explain some of the criticism quite well , thanks Well, she hasn't used those precise words. But she's said that she would vote in a way that is consistent with her faith. Even that I think is fine (well, it's not - but it's not a reason to have her burnt at the stake either), and didn't prevent her from being elected as an MSP or being made Finance Minister. But as @desensitized43 rightly says, there's voting with your faith and then there's having the power to promote a whole legislative agenda which your voting record suggests would be consistent with your faith. And that's not something that a lot of SNP members really want. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 17, 2023 Author Share Posted March 17, 2023 1 minute ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said: Its not so much the numbers, its the reason for their release. 2 of the FM candidates are pretty sure that the contest is rigged from inside the SNP so they wanted the numbers to see how many people could vote. (A great look, calling your own party corrupt) It's the sudden drop as well though, either the numbers were inflated or there is some acceptance that Indy is truly dead within the membership, bit of both I suspect. The BBC article didn’t give context of ‘why’ it didn’t explain that membership goes up and down depending on when marches are planned, it didn’t offer comparison with other parties. It was a stand alone piece that SNP membership had crashed and this was nothing short of a disaster. It was that fuzzy bit between being the national broadcaster, and the state broadcaster. I get the reason why the numbers have come out, but that wasn’t what the piece was hung on. I might easily have missed it, but I don’t remember a similar piece to camera when membership was at a high point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted March 17, 2023 Share Posted March 17, 2023 The greatest danger to the SNP dream of independence is the tories losing power - a bit of reinforced federalism from Labour and the swing voters on the independence debate will be fully no to the idea. It's a pity really, although useless the SNP have been a strong voice for Scotland for a long time now and I'm completely sympathetic to their cause, but that said they have been a bit shit. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 17, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 17, 2023 8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: The BBC article didn’t give context of ‘why’ it didn’t explain that membership goes up and down depending on when marches are planned, it didn’t offer comparison with other parties. It was a stand alone piece that SNP membership had crashed and this was nothing short of a disaster. To be fair that seems to be the narrative being pushed by the two candidates who think it's a stitch up. And as the figures came from the SNP... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts