SNP Leadership – Will Anything Change… Really?editor
Some Glaswegians comment on the leadership candidates – filmed in George Square, city centre…
I must admit, I didn’t watch the leadership debate, not because I’m not interested in
their lies what they have to say, but because I did not know to tune into the channel. That’s an offshoot of not being a regular viewer on mainstream news channels. Anyway, from the little I’ve seen and read, I doubt if any of the candidates will set the heather on fire, certainly not by actively promoting Christian values. If anyone did watch, and can inform us of any questions (and candidates’ responses) on moral issues, such as abortion and euthanasia, the awful Gender Recognition Bill which I believe Humza Yousaf plans to resurrect, that would be helpful. For now, I don’t expect any change in the direction of the SNP or Scottish Government. St Andrew, pray for us!
The woman in the blue jacket is my favourite and her final words at the end, say it all. There are many more people who think like her in Scotland than the media would have us think. It doesn’t matter who wins this race, nothing will change, definitely not for the better.
That woman in the blue jacket is the only one in that entire segment with a brain. She needs a new hairdresser but – that apart – she is the star of the show.
Margaret Mary and Editor
I agree entirely, but in the interim it’s a case of tweedle Dee replaces tweedle dumb.
I think the woman in the blue jacket is right not to trust any of the candidates. The supposed Christian, Kate Forbes, has said she will support buffer zones but won’t say she supports abortion. She’s another Jacob Rees-Mogg trying to preserve the reputation of being a Christian while avoiding admitting to certain unpopular beliefs and values. It’s pathetic.
If your leadership debates are anything like ours, they are nothing but scripted, carefully controlled dog and pony shows, where nothing of any substance is discussed. So I’d wager you probably spared yourself a great deal of tsuris* by not watching it. At the Presidential debates for our 2020 “election” (and you know why I put that in quotes), the moderator was openly hostile to President Trump.
As Margaret USA is wont to remind us, “In politics, nothing happens by accident.”
*I thought we needed a little Yiddish on this blog…. a little change of pace from nativist expressions like “set the heather on fire,” dontcha know… 🙂
The debates (of all kinds) are definitely scripted, to prevent any uncomfortable questions arising. That’s why I’d like to see one of them now, following the Lockdown Files release – I would dearly love to watch one right through to see if anyone asks a question about “the science” / lockdown exposé. I’d be amazed if anything at all is said about that in these “debates” – goodness, there’s more real fight in a Punch & Judy Show. It’s the way I tell ’em…
I doubt very much if anyone gets into these debates without their questions being scrutinised. If you want to ask the “wrong” question, you’ll not be allowed in.
I meant to say there will be a way of monitoring who gets into the studio for the debate and nobody who was honest enough to state his or her real views will make it. You’d need to be careful not to give away what you actually believe. It’s called being “wise as serpents”.
Completely right – nobody gets on TV in any of these Q & A debates unless they are carefully selected. This is how they can preserve the image of a united (in immorality) population while the majority of the population actually think differently.
That Humza Yousaf comes across as a very stupid and sly man. I read somewhere that before the same sex marriage vote back in ?2015, he asked Alex Salmond to grant him an exception not to be in Parliament that day because the mosque would ostracise if he voted for it. Therefore I assume he’d lose the large Muslim vote. At least Kate Forbes is honest about her beliefs.
The same sex “marriage” vote was in 2014. Don’t worry – we all make mistakes sometimes. You’ll get over it. Don’t think twice about it. The only date which is mandatory to remember is the Battle of Hastings in 1068. Everybody knows that.
And you are correct about “sly” Yousaf. My favourite example is when he appeared on BBC Question Time from Scotland and a question arose about the Named Person Scheme. The host (David Dimbleby) asked one of the English panellists to address it and she got mixed up, saying in her preamble that she thought this proposed scheme would allow parents to choose a state official to be a sort of guardian for their children. Of course, the whole problem with the scheme was that the parents had NO say, and, in fact, the State Guardian – later known as the Named Person (to help the hue and cry to die down) – would be the first point of contact if a problem arose, e.g. at school; parents were way down the list…
Yet Humza Yousaf sat there and allowed that panellist’s error to go uncorrected until Dimbleby made an attempt to correct it, asking Yousaf, who was then forced to admit that the Guardian would be appointed by the State, not the parents. If Dimbleby hadn’t queried that panellist’s assumption, Yousaf would have left that error intact, I have no doubt about that, whatsoever. Snake. I’m due at Confession anyway.
Humza Yousaf is definitely sly. I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.
I don’t know anything about Ash Regan, though – she’s kept a low profile until now.
Kate Forbes is only marginally better since there is enough of the politician in her to keep her “Christianity” at bay. She’s still the best of the three.
This comment from Darren Grimes on the SNP and Humza Yousaf in particular is very outspoken. Darren Grimes is often quite hard-hitting.
Ouch! Darren Grimes really doesn’t like the SNP, LOL! That was quite harsh in places but I supposed the candidates need to be able to take the heat or get out of the kitchen.