Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[scott herbertson]

7 hours ago, Lord Montpelier said:

I'm massively sceptical of any politician who claims to be both a devout follower of a religion and at the same time able to distance themselves from that in their decision making. 

 

One informs the other 

 

she doesn't

[redjambo]

2 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Incredulous and Indefensible 

 

 

I'm not quite sure that incredulous means what you think it means.

[i wish jj was my dad]

I've never heard of any homosexuals being thrown off a roof in the UK or any other secular country.  I have heard of it happening in the Islamic state which was roundly condemned as an international pariah and some other places that are quite frankly living in medevial times but it keeps getting brought up in the context of Humza though and by the same frothers that repeatedly jeer about him 'playing the race card'.  Not racist though.  'Right side of history' etc, etc

[The Real Maroonblood]

19 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I'm not quite sure that incredulous means what you think it means.

[The Mighty Thor]

7 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I've never heard of any homosexuals being thrown off a roof in the UK or any other secular country.  I have heard of it happening in the Islamic state which was roundly condemned as an international pariah and some other places that are quite frankly living in medevial times but it keeps getting brought up in the context of Humza though and by the same frothers that repeatedly jeer about him 'playing the race card'.  Not racist though.  'Right side of history' etc, etc

Fair comment 

[OTT]

I've a suspicion that this is going to backfire on the greens/ Patrick Harvey.

 

Scotland is a very tolerant country, but that goes both ways, and intolarance, no matter how you dress it up is still intolerance. Kate Forbes deserves the chance to demonstrate her suitability/lack of suitability before being condemned. The greens aren't even allowing her that. Its disgraceful. 

 

It also poses questions for future voters, if you're a roman catholic with traditional views, does that mean the greens think you're a bigot with no place in their party (which is supposed to be a party orientated around the environment...) 

 

I hope the green vote collapses in 2026. They've proven themselves a fringe group of ****ing weirdos that don't even do what it says on the tin. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

1 minute ago, OTT said:

I've a suspicion that this is going to backfire on the greens/ Patrick Harvey.

 

Scotland is a very tolerant country, but that goes both ways, and intolarance, no matter how you dress it up is still intolerance. Kate Forbes deserves the chance to demonstrate her suitability/lack of suitability before being condemned. The greens aren't even allowing her that. Its disgraceful. 

 

It also poses questions for future voters, if you're a roman catholic with traditional views, does that mean the greens think you're a bigot with no place in their party (which is supposed to be a party orientated around the environment...) 

 

I hope the green vote collapses in 2026. They've proven themselves a fringe group of ****ing weirdos that don't even do what it says on the tin. 

I'd rather religion was left at the door in politics but politicians are human so I think it is fair to give KF  the chance to be judged by her actions not by her faith. Just the same as it should have been with Humza instead of calling him Hamas and referring to his terrorist pals. 

[OTT]

7 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I'd rather religion was left at the door in politics but politicians are human so I think it is fair to give KF  the chance to be judged by her actions not by her faith. Just the same as it should have been with Humza instead of calling him Hamas and referring to his terrorist pals. 

 

Well thats it isn't it, her actions. Like voting FOR the expansion of buffer zones around abortion clinics. The opposite of John Mason, who voted AGAINST this because of his religious views. Its almost like she can leave her religious views at the door and will act in the best interests of her constituents. 

 

Record of the vote:

https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/S6M-13015

 

Explanation of what the actual bill does:

https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,in-context-abortion-services-safe-access-zones-scotland-bill#:~:text=The bill was introduced in,more frequent in recent years.

 

She should be judged on her actions and I think its a sad indictment of the so called progressives that they are rounding on her in this way. Its vicious, vile and I think thinly veiled misogyny. There is a complete disregard of Kate Forbes the person and her right to hold whatever mainstream views she wants. Its like Harvie and the greens have gotten so used to brow beating people who don't agree with their POV that the very notion of someone holding socially conservative views is something they mentally cannot handle, which actually demonstrates why Humza was correct in terminating the BHA and how ill judged it was for Sturgeon to bring them into government to begin with. 

 

On one hand, Forbes can act in for her constituents in being able to put her personal feelings to one side to best represent her constituents, on the other hand, Patrick Harvie cannot accept the evidence based Cass report, and Maggie Chapman was trying to argue for 8 year olds being able to change sex - hardly views which represent their constituents. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

3 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Clearly better than getting thrown of buildings. 

 

I'd throw you off a building for being a slaver, james. The gays are all good imo.

[il Duce McTarkin]

36 minutes ago, OTT said:

I've a suspicion that this is going to backfire on the greens/ Patrick Harvey.

 

Scotland is a very tolerant country, but that goes both ways, and intolarance, no matter how you dress it up is still intolerance. Kate Forbes deserves the chance to demonstrate her suitability/lack of suitability before being condemned. The greens aren't even allowing her that. Its disgraceful. 

 

It also poses questions for future voters, if you're a roman catholic with traditional views, does that mean the greens think you're a bigot with no place in their party (which is supposed to be a party orientated around the environment...) 

 

I hope the green vote collapses in 2026. They've proven themselves a fringe group of ****ing weirdos that don't even do what it says on the tin. 

 

Good post.

[JudyJudyJudy]

9 minutes ago, il Duce McTarkin said:

 

I'd throw you off a building for being a slaver, james. The gays are all good imo.

Not if i manage to kick you in the baws first....

 

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

then run away 

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

14 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Well thats it isn't it, her actions. Like voting FOR the expansion of buffer zones around abortion clinics. The opposite of John Mason, who voted AGAINST this because of his religious views. Its almost like she can leave her religious views at the door and will act in the best interests of her constituents. 

 

Record of the vote:

https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/S6M-13015

 

Explanation of what the actual bill does:

https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,in-context-abortion-services-safe-access-zones-scotland-bill#:~:text=The bill was introduced in,more frequent in recent years.

 

She should be judged on her actions and I think its a sad indictment of the so called progressives that they are rounding on her in this way. Its vicious, vile and I think thinly veiled misogyny. There is a complete disregard of Kate Forbes the person and her right to hold whatever mainstream views she wants. Its like Harvie and the greens have gotten so used to brow beating people who don't agree with their POV that the very notion of someone holding socially conservative views is something they mentally cannot handle, which actually demonstrates why Humza was correct in terminating the BHA and how ill judged it was for Sturgeon to bring them into government to begin with. 

 

On one hand, Forbes can act in for her constituents in being able to put her personal feelings to one side to best represent her constituents, on the other hand, Patrick Harvie cannot accept the evidence based Cass report, and Maggie Chapman was trying to argue for 8 year olds being able to change sex - hardly views which represent their constituents. 

Excellent posting. Yes the so called tolerant are actually very intolerant. They cannot accept that the majority of people have a completely differing views to theirs. They have lived in an echo chamber (literally) in the last couple of years shielded and protected by Sturgeon and Humza.  Well the party is over for them now. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

4 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Not if i manage to kick you in the baws first....

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

then run away 

 

 

 

Fair comment.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, il Duce McTarkin said:

 

Fair comment.

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

dp

Edited May 9 by JudyJudyJudy

[JudyJudyJudy]

dp

Edited May 9 by JudyJudyJudy

[Thunder and Lightning]

8 hours ago, OTT said:

 

Extremely IMO. 

 

Tolerance is a two way street, a far better position might have been to invite her to visit an LGBT clinic or something along those lines. He's made himself look like a petulant wee prick and another of the hyper intolerant "be kind" lot. 

 

Clinics? It's not something to be treated and cured ffs. 😂 

 

 

7 hours ago, luckydug said:

Think you'll be very disappointed on Election night.

Labour will win big in England and SNP will retain most of their Scottish seats.

Keir Starmer has blown Labour's chances in Scotland by allowing a far right politician in to the LP.

Most potential Labour voters in Scotland are horrified by what he's allowed to happen.

Red Tories.

Can you share your research showing the opinion of "most potential labour voters" pls. 

[redjambo]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

I've a suspicion that this is going to backfire on the greens/ Patrick Harvey.

 

Scotland is a very tolerant country, but that goes both ways, and intolarance, no matter how you dress it up is still intolerance. Kate Forbes deserves the chance to demonstrate her suitability/lack of suitability before being condemned. The greens aren't even allowing her that. Its disgraceful. 

 

It also poses questions for future voters, if you're a roman catholic with traditional views, does that mean the greens think you're a bigot with no place in their party (which is supposed to be a party orientated around the environment...) 

 

I hope the green vote collapses in 2026. They've proven themselves a fringe group of ****ing weirdos that don't even do what it says on the tin. 

 

I've voted Green before. No way would I vote for them now.

[i wish jj was my dad]

11 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Well thats it isn't it, her actions. Like voting FOR the expansion of buffer zones around abortion clinics. The opposite of John Mason, who voted AGAINST this because of his religious views. Its almost like she can leave her religious views at the door and will act in the best interests of her constituents. 

 

Record of the vote:

https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/S6M-13015

 

Explanation of what the actual bill does:

https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,in-context-abortion-services-safe-access-zones-scotland-bill#:~:text=The bill was introduced in,more frequent in recent years.

 

She should be judged on her actions and I think its a sad indictment of the so called progressives that they are rounding on her in this way. Its vicious, vile and I think thinly veiled misogyny. There is a complete disregard of Kate Forbes the person and her right to hold whatever mainstream views she wants. Its like Harvie and the greens have gotten so used to brow beating people who don't agree with their POV that the very notion of someone holding socially conservative views is something they mentally cannot handle, which actually demonstrates why Humza was correct in terminating the BHA and how ill judged it was for Sturgeon to bring them into government to begin with. 

 

On one hand, Forbes can act in for her constituents in being able to put her personal feelings to one side to best represent her constituents, on the other hand, Patrick Harvie cannot accept the evidence based Cass report, and Maggie Chapman was trying to argue for 8 year olds being able to change sex - hardly views which represent their constituents. 

Your far more invested in who's who in the SNP and what they stand for than me so I'm sure you know a lot more about her than I do. KF has got attention because of her cabinet role and standing for leadership.  John Mason is not so well kent outside Holyrood. The little I do know about him doesn't impress me and the comments I read about him  on here today haven't helped. He's never as far as I know come close to being in cabinet so his impact on the life of the general population are negligible  which is why his views/religion don't register with most people outside the bubble of politics

As for misogyny, that never occurred to me. Two comparisons I would draw with KF though are with Theresa May who I think was from a religious background but I don't recall her or anybody else bringing her religion into politics. The abuse she took was purely political rather than sex or religion.  I don't know if Sturgeon had religion but she certainly took plenty of abuse and a lot of that was to do with her being a woman. 

FWIW, I think BHA was a huge mistake and it was right for Humza to end it. I actually think there are positives to be had from a minority administration. It may remove some of the toxicity that is damaging politics and society. That doesn't suit a lot of agendas though. 

[OTT]

8 minutes ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

 

Clinics? It's not something to be treated and cured ffs. 😂 

 

 

https://lgbtyouth.org.uk/sexual-health-clinics/

 

Its the correct terminology. 

[OTT]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

I've voted Green before. No way would I vote for them now.

 

Yeah, I think a lot of people might feel similar. You vote green because you want to see policies on the agenda which support environmental issues. 

 

Instead, they've put the whole gender debate front and centre of everything their parliamentary group stands for. Its a bit of a bait and switch from what you would expect to be voting for when you support the greens. 

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

9 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Yeah, I think a lot of people might feel similar. You vote green because you want to see policies on the agenda which support environmental issues. 

 

Instead, they've put the whole gender debate front and centre of everything their parliamentary group stands for. Its a bit of a bait and switch from what you would expect to be voting for when you support the greens. 

 

 

The greens have morphed into something completely different from their previous identity . They have been captured . Hooked in . 

[hughesie27]

9 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Yeah, I think a lot of people might feel similar. You vote green because you want to see policies on the agenda which support environmental issues. 

 

Instead, they've put the whole gender debate front and centre of everything their parliamentary group stands for. Its a bit of a bait and switch from what you would expect to be voting for when you support the greens. 

 

 

Yep, I've been an SNP 1 Green 2 voter recently but can see that changing.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, OTT said:

 

Yeah, I think a lot of people might feel similar. You vote green because you want to see policies on the agenda which support environmental issues. 

 

Instead, they've put the whole gender debate front and centre of everything their parliamentary group stands for. Its a bit of a bait and switch from what you would expect to be voting for when you support the greens. 

 

 

 

Indeed. There's enough to be getting on with regarding the environment - energy, waste, nature protection, pollution, climate change etc. You can understand that a party such as the Greens may wish to have other policy issues in order to show folk that it considers itself not to be a single-issue party, but to put said issues before the environmental ones is a no-go, imo.

 

And even on the environment side, the Greens handling of the deposit return scheme appears to have been shambolic, Westminster poking its nose in aside, in a manner in which you are left wondering whether they are able to actually deliver in general the various policies they propose.

[il Duce McTarkin]

41 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I've voted Green before. No way would I vote for them now.

 

Same here.

[FWJ]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

 

Well thats it isn't it, her actions. Like voting FOR the expansion of buffer zones around abortion clinics. The opposite of John Mason, who voted AGAINST this because of his religious views. Its almost like she can leave her religious views at the door and will act in the best interests of her constituents. 

 

Record of the vote:

https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/S6M-13015

 

Explanation of what the actual bill does:

https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,in-context-abortion-services-safe-access-zones-scotland-bill#:~:text=The bill was introduced in,more frequent in recent years.

 

She should be judged on her actions and I think its a sad indictment of the so called progressives that they are rounding on her in this way. Its vicious, vile and I think thinly veiled misogyny. There is a complete disregard of Kate Forbes the person and her right to hold whatever mainstream views she wants. Its like Harvie and the greens have gotten so used to brow beating people who don't agree with their POV that the very notion of someone holding socially conservative views is something they mentally cannot handle, which actually demonstrates why Humza was correct in terminating the BHA and how ill judged it was for Sturgeon to bring them into government to begin with. 

 

On one hand, Forbes can act in for her constituents in being able to put her personal feelings to one side to best represent her constituents, on the other hand, Patrick Harvie cannot accept the evidence based Cass report, and Maggie Chapman was trying to argue for 8 year olds being able to change sex - hardly views which represent their constituents. 

Opposing gay marriage is a “mainstream view”?

 

How very fragile these lately-found equality laws may prove to be.

[JudyJudyJudy]

This 

 

 

 

[OTT]

1 hour ago, FWJ said:

Opposing gay marriage is a “mainstream view”?

 

How very fragile these lately-found equality laws may prove to be.

 

Opposition to gay marriage within religion is a fairly mainstream view, be that Catholicism, Islam, conservative branches of Judiasm. Most religions define marriage as between a man & a woman which is frustratingly problematic.

 

*To be clear, I'm not religious and I do not support opposition to gay marriage but I also don't think it can be downplayed as some religious fringe view. For example, 15.9% of Scots in the 2011 census identify as Catholic - the Catholic church doesn't support gay marriage -albeit that stance is softening under the current pope. 

[Hagar the Horrible]

4 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

This 

 

 

 

So let's be clear, The Greens want equity for all, but only to women with a cock. 

 

 

Progressive policies made law that criminalise any with a religious belief should be jailed. Best of luck going after the entire Islamic faith. 

 

Even the potholed cycle lane to their utopia is terrifying to the average person.   They ARE a hate crime.

 

Forgot to add all paid for by the progressive taxation of the middle earners, whom they want to jail.

[Roxy Hearts]

6 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

This 

 

 

 

Joanne Cherry gets on my wick! Always with the negative waves!

[redjambo]

6 hours ago, OTT said:

 

Opposition to gay marriage within religion is a fairly mainstream view, be that Catholicism, Islam, conservative branches of Judiasm. Most religions define marriage as between a man & a woman which is frustratingly problematic.

 

*To be clear, I'm not religious and I do not support opposition to gay marriage but I also don't think it can be downplayed as some religious fringe view. For example, 15.9% of Scots in the 2011 census identify as Catholic - the Catholic church doesn't support gay marriage -albeit that stance is softening under the current pope. 

 

There is still a low but significant opposition to gay marriage in Scotland. The latest figures I can find with a quick search are UK-wide, sorry, and that puts it at 78% in favour.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/45868-record-number-britons-support-same-sex-marriage-10

 

I think your argument with the other poster here hinges on the definition of "mainstream". That usually refers to the most commonly-held view or the majority view, e.g. "the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are shared by most people and regarded as normal or conventional", whereas you seem to be interpreting mainstream as non-fringe. Perhaps it is better to consider there being a range between mainstream and fringe, and that is where opposition to same-sex marriage lies.

[OTT]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

There is still a low but significant opposition to gay marriage in Scotland. The latest figures I can find with a quick search are UK-wide, sorry, and that puts it at 78% in favour.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/45868-record-number-britons-support-same-sex-marriage-10

 

I think your argument with the other poster here hinges on the definition of "mainstream". That usually refers to the most commonly-held view or the majority view, e.g. "the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are shared by most people and regarded as normal or conventional", whereas you seem to be interpreting mainstream as non-fringe. Perhaps it is better to consider there being a range between mainstream and fringe, and that is where opposition to same-sex marriage lies.

 

Commonly acknowledged belief was what I was getting at - very aware its no longer the majority opinion, which is good!

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Commonly acknowledged belief was what I was getting at - very aware its no longer the majority opinion, which is good!

Yes it’s not a majority view but there are still a significant percentage out there who are against it . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Joanne Cherry gets on my wick! Always with the negative waves!

I heard she’s not too keen on you either ! 😂

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 hours ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

So let's be clear, The Greens want equity for all, but only to women with a cock. 

 

 

Progressive policies made law that criminalise any with a religious belief should be jailed. Best of luck going after the entire Islamic faith. 

 

Even the potholed cycle lane to their utopia is terrifying to the average person.   They ARE a hate crime.

 

Forgot to add all paid for by the progressive taxation of the middle earners, whom they want to jail.

Yes they want everyone to kow tow to their views which are pretty warped . The vast majority don’t so they are flogging a dead horse . 

[FWJ]

And yet with people like Kate Forbes we nod our head, say “well - I don’t agree with your views on gay marriage but they are sincerely held because of your religious beliefs, so while I don’t agree with you there is about 20% of the population who do, so your views are legitimised by religion and so I respect you for that”  etc etc etc …

 

 

When I was born there were still over a dozen US states which banned mixed-race marriages.  This wasn’t archaic ‘Christmas is banned’ or weird ‘can’t tie an alligator to a fire hydrant’ stuff, people were being imprisoned.

 

How much time or “well-at-least-thanks-for-telling-us-the-truth” respect would politicians get if they voiced their deeply held opposition to mixed-race marriage?

 

Religion, like politics, is a choice.

Edited May 10 by FWJ

[Gundermann]

14 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Stripping away women's rights to placade the LGBT vote is extremist.

 

You don't think devaluing people's properties is extreme?

 

Heat pumps are flawed and far more expensive to run than Gas so are not a viable alternative.

 

No. All subjective views on policies that have cross-party support.

 

Canny mind you gurning about the Rape Clause, Bedroom Tax or both Tory and Labour being comfortable with Elphicke's defence of her rapey husband. But aye, women's rights?

[Gundermann]

Spot on.

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Gundermann said:

Spot on.

 

Off topic 

[FWJ]

2 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

No. All subjective views on policies that have cross-party support.

 

Canny mind you gurning about the Rape Clause, Bedroom Tax or both Tory and Labour being comfortable with Elphicke's defence of her rapey husband. But aye, women's rights?

I’m intrigued by this new-found enthusiasm for women’s rights among many.  It reminds me of the 1980s with ‘gays should be banned, says so in the bible’ usually voiced by those who hadn’t seen the inside of a church since nineteen oatcake.

[Gundermann]

3 minutes ago, FWJ said:

I’m intrigued by this new-found enthusiasm for women’s rights among many.  It reminds me of the 1980s with ‘gays should be banned, says so in the bible’ usually voiced by those who hadn’t seen the inside of a church since nineteen oatcake.

This.

 

Austerity, poverty and bullshit like the Rape Clause and Bedroom Tax affect real women and their families in the here and now. Labour have vowed to keep them.

 

Yet some wet their pants because there's a chance that a tiny, tiny percentage of male beasts will use Trans Rights to assault women. Like you say, I can mind the scare stories in the 80s and 90s about gay rights - "male teachers will rape our boys" etc... it was BS. Similar also to cutting down on benefits because some people cheat them. But if you want to tackle male abuse of power and hate with legislation then they whinge about dictatorships and free speech...

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

This.

 

Austerity, poverty and bullshit like the Rape Clause and Bedroom Tax affect real women and their families in the here and now. Labour have vowed to keep them.

 

Yet some wet their pants because there's a chance that a tiny, tiny percentage of male beasts will use Trans Rights to assault women. Like you say, I can mind the scare stories in the 80s and 90s about gay rights - "male teachers will rape our boys" etc... it was BS. Similar also to cutting down on benefits because some people cheat them. But if you want to tackle male abuse of power and hate with legislation then they whinge about dictatorships and free speech...

Stop equating gay rights with trans rights . Gays and lesbians did not fight to take away the rights of another group . They argued for equal rights . 

[doctor jambo]

11 minutes ago, FWJ said:

I’m intrigued by this new-found enthusiasm for women’s rights among many.  It reminds me of the 1980s with ‘gays should be banned, says so in the bible’ usually voiced by those who hadn’t seen the inside of a church since nineteen oatcake.

it isnt a new found enthusiasm.

it also has nothing to do with homosexuality

it isn't a right wing thing nor a religious thing

Many of those campaigning are left wing feminists, predominantly lesbian left wing feminists.

The attempts to smear everyone that raises concerns about men going into womens and girls changing areas is pretty disgusting.

Glinner for instance was at the forefront of campaigning for Irish womens reproductive rights before he was destroyed.

This is across the political spectrum.

It is not "right wing" to support women in their wish to maintain safe spaces- the keyword being maintain.

Give yourself a shake 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, doctor jambo said:

it isnt a new found enthusiasm.

it also has nothing to do with homosexuality

it isn't a right wing thing nor a religious thing

Many of those campaigning are left wing feminists, predominantly lesbian left wing feminists.

The attempts to smear everyone that raises concerns about men going into womens and girls changing areas is pretty disgusting.

Glinner for instance was at the forefront of campaigning for Irish womens reproductive rights before he was destroyed.

This is across the political spectrum.

It is not "right wing" to support women in their wish to maintain safe spaces- the keyword being maintain.

Give yourself a shake 

Well said 

[FWJ]

I just said it reminds me of earlier hypocrisy.

Rather like the “I don’t rely mind the gays, I just wish they could be a bit more normal”.  It was usually the same ones who didn’t want to allow gay people to marry and buy a nice wee detached bungalow next to them in the suburbs.

[hughesie27]

On 08/05/2024 at 14:06, JudyJudyJudy said:

There’s a Labour thread for that . Stop the deflection 

 

20 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Stop equating gay rights with trans rights . Gays and lesbians did not fight to take away the rights of another group . They argued for equal rights . 

[FWJ]

21 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Stop equating gay rights with trans rights . Gays and lesbians did not fight to take away the rights of another group . They argued for equal rights . 

Ah.  So you’re one of those men telling people what they should and shouldn’t  say and think.  How’s that for free speech.

I wonder how your heroine Joannes, Cherry & Rowling would take to a man telling them what they should think.

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, FWJ said:

Ah.  So you’re one of those men telling people what they should and shouldn’t  say and think.  How’s that for free speech.

I wonder how your heroine Joannes, Cherry & Rowling would take to a man telling them what they should think.

A person shouldn’t need to be told that women and girls need their own safe spaces , . If they do the problems on them 

[FWJ]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

A person shouldn’t need to be told that women and girls need their own safe spaces , . If they do the problems on them 

What was that about ‘deflection’ ?

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, FWJ said:

What was that about ‘deflection’ ?

 

 

No one’s deflecting . This issue was pertinent to the SNP \ greens .