Humza Yousaf announced his resignation as Scotland’s First Minister at noon today. The Telegraph has more.
The SNP leader will quit ahead of a vote of no confidence at Holyrood, expected on Wednesday, that it appeared likely he would lose.
The development comes only four days after he held a press conference at his Bute House official residence to announce he was ending his coalition deal with the Scottish Greens.
Mr. Yousaf will make a statement on his future at Bute House in Edinburgh at noon. …
Lorna Slater, the co-leader of Scottish Greens, said Humza Yousaf had shown “very poor judgement” by scrapping the coalition deal.
Asked if Mr. Yousaf would only have himself to blame if he does lose his job, Ms. Slater told Sky News this morning: “Yes, I think so.
“I think he showed very poor judgement to suddenly collapse a pro-independence majority government when we had worked together really well for two and a half years.”
Read more here.
Turfing out a far Left outfit that refused to accept the impossibility of Scotland’s particularly extreme Net Zero targets or the scientific findings of the Cass Review on transgender medicine for young people was a good decision from an ideological point of view and in terms of appealing to voters. But politically, given the numbers at Holyrood, it was disastrous and made Yousaf’s position untenable.
The Telegraph‘s Gordon Rayner says “Humza Yousaf’s hate crime and trans laws will be his divisive legacy“.
In truth, the public never wanted Mr. Yousaf as First Minister: opinion polls before his election consistently showed that Kate Forbes, his socially conservative rival for the leadership, was far more popular with both SNP supporters and voters as a whole.
But will the SNP now install Forbes as his successor? Of course not. Can’t have a conservative in charge. Particularly if the arrangement relies on the Greens not opposing it.
Instead, John Swinney is being widely touted as leader of a new minority SNP administration: a former Deputy First Minister who backed gender self-ID for 16 year-olds, boasted in 2018 that Scotland would be “the first country in the world” to have an LGBT-inclusive education “embedded” into the school curriculum, and is fanatical about Net Zero.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Yet another example of why I find religion abhorrent. With this one being especially so.
The Charlie Hebdo massacre is a distant memory then…
Or is this another red flag event? Probably.
Would you mind explaining what you mean by ‘red flag event’?
A ‘red flag event’ is one intended to raise fear and alarm which then allows TPTB to wade in and announce that “something must be done.” Usually, the solution is some draconian restriction. It is a bit like gaslighting but with a nasty outcome.
Typically red flag events are engineered by a government so that they can provide a solution to something that doesn’t exist.
For example, the ‘shoe bomber’ led to some typically draconian security issues at airports and these continue.
What might be emanating from this incident? Facial Recognition before entry to a public building? Just a thought.
Doubt it.
TPTB aren’t literary enough to care about Rushdie. They’d do more after an attack on a reality TV star.
Yup. You are channelling the cabal Huxley.
Not only will facial recognition be upped but the old anti Iranian terrorist trope can get wheeled out since the Ukraine proxy war isn’t going so well. Iran is an easy target. China is obvs not going to get hit.
Midterms are so close so a little bombing raid on Iran might galvanise the “free speech” people’s of the West.
4 dislikes. Very interesting.
Try asserting that Jesus of Nazareth was just a bloke who made the Jews and Romans angry and that they killed him and that was that. That gets downvotes!
Hey Joe, not sure where you stand on the JC, but I’m used to people claiming he never even existed. That JC is a conspiracy himself.
I didn’t want to kill the person/s who told me this. I just felt sorry for them and for our world now that many thin not eating meat will save their existential guilt but don’t believe in souls in the first place.
I am certain he existed. But he was just a regular sceptic. TPTW didn’t like that.
Thanks for replying, but just to be clear
1. are you suggesting that a western govt or govts have engineered a situation in which Rushdie has in reality been stabbed? Or that a seemingly convincing story that Rushdie has been stabbed has been released by the govt or govts concerned, even though in reality he hasn’t?
2. either way, isn’t the suggestion that any given incident is a red flag event inherently unfalsifiable and therefore problematic?
It is possible that this was either allowed to haoopen or encouraged to haooen by elements like Mossad/NeoCon in order to turn public attention towards Tehran and to galvinise support for military action against Tehran or to prevent a new nuclear processing deal from going ahead (which is immanent).
It depends on what you mean by ‘religion’: woke-ists have the same mindset as radical Islam, for example, and they’re also part of a deranged endtimes cult that is neither theist nor deist.
And, for perspective, an old lady who goes to church on a Sunday and has a cup of tea with other parishioners and the vicar afterwards is highly unlikely to stab someone. In the present day, there’s really only one religious group, globally, that is into this level of maniacal religious violence. Even most historical Christian wars were – at core – about land ownership and money, using doctrine as an excuse.
The main thing this shows is that you can restrict guns all you like, but psychos will simply find different way to kill. Will Smith showed how easy it is to attack people onstage a few weeks ago. It was a mistake for Salman Rushdie to go to New York: had he gone to Texas, the psycho would never made it on to the stage, let alone stab Rushdie.
I agree. Although not religious myself I was mightily pissed off when they were closing churches during lockdowns, and other places of worship, or when religious leaders such as the pope or Archbishop of Canterbury were outspoken in their insulting views, supporting the Covid narrative and telling people to eat less meat, for example. I totally subscribe to the old adage of “Live and let live”. The ‘but’ comes when people start murdering other people, or abusing them in some other way, and using their religious beliefs as some sort of justification for their psychopathy or wicked actions. It just so happens that the religion of Islam is always the one that seems to be behind any current or recent killings.
So believe in whatever you wish to believe in, as is your fundamental human right, and I will carry on disbelieving, and so this is the way people co-exist in harmony and demonstrate tolerance. Like many things just now, if people just stay in their own lanes then most of these ructions would not occur.
But I draw the line at abusing or killing one another.
Ah but disbelieving what? And what will you believe instead?
It reminds me of people who say they are “tolerant” – but of course they are not really, they are just intolerant of different things – and people who say they are “disbelieving” simply believe in alternative things, for example, an alternative creation story (such as through the statistically impossible, now quite fashionable among some in scientism), or the “aliens”, or the benignity of proven psychological – well, you get the idea..
The difference is in who you follow and what book you follow. Jesus, the eternal Son of God, taught “love your enemies, do good to those who ill-treat you, bless those who curse you.”
Mo, on the other hand, teaches “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Surah 4:91), “fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh on them” (Surah 9:73), “and for those who abuse the messenger of Allah – for them is a painful punishment” (Surah 9:61), “oh you who have believed, fight against those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find you in harshness” (Surah 9:123).
(Including (some of) the atheist religions). Worth remembering that more people died in the 20th century from the wars and persecutions of atheists than from all recorded wars prior to then. At the same time, there are plenty of atheists who are far better people than me – and plenty of Shia (and Sunni) Muslims who have done much good. The dictionary says of the word religion: “A belief in… higher unseen controlling power(s); rites or worship. Certainly I see aspects of this in the various modern forms of “scientism”. As for my own Christian beliefs, I went on our annual pilgrimage not so long ago, and what I see on these pilgrimages is people being graced by physical and spiritual healings, encouraged and guided by prophetic words of knowledge, people finding peace who have had in some cases very troubled lives previously. And I have to say I don’t find it abhorrent. As C. S. Lewis finally had to admit, this “fairytale” in fact happens to be true.
As for the free speech issue, the German “Democratic” Republic wasn’t exactly noted for free speech was it?
Non of the hideous crimes of the 20th century were carried out in the name of atheism. It’s true that many of them were carried out by regimes that were non religious, but most of these were led by and promoted views that were as strongly held and irrational as any of the rubbish spouted by ISIS/Al Queda etc. and were equally as intolerent of dissent.
To be fair you could make similar distinctions with political Islam, or the “troubles” in Ireland. But Muslims/Protestants/Catholics in general get abuse for the actions of these unrepresentative groups just the same. And besides, claiming to find “religion” abhorrent was a bit strong wasn’t it, and very vague besides as I suggested above?
And “non of the… crimes”? Maybe you need to look a bit more closely at the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party (for one)? The reason they were pushing the fake fossil finds and the monkeys to man hypothesis so strongly was surely precisely because of an atheist ideology. They do not of course represent all atheists but they certainly have an atheist ideology so far as I can see.
The Chinese Communist Partly never had a manifesto of bringing about worldwide atheism, even if they wanted to spread communism, therefore my point that their crimes were not motivated by atheism remains valid. This stands in stark contrast to groups such as ISIS who’s only aim was/is to to spread Islam through violent conquest.
Given how many people have volunteered to fight for ISIS/the Taliban etc. I would question if these people are unrepresentative of the views of Muslims in general. When you look at other incidences such as the protest outside the school in Bately, the protests over the Muhammed cartoons in Jyllands Postern etc. It becomes obvious that intolerence of free speech is pretty widespread amongst most Muslims.
Although this level of intolerence is no longer present in European Christianity (but is still present in Evangelical groups in America/Africa etc. with regards to homosexuality) it shouldn’t be forgotten that the Holocaust (or more precisely the Nazis’ belief in the need for a final solution to the Jewish question/”problem” in Europe) didn’t arise out of nowhere but was the final mad end product of a millennia or more of anti semitism in Europe, often promoted by the Catholic Church. This was promoted because of the religious beliefs of Catholics from the pope down that the Jews killed their messiah.
Religious people have, and in some cases continue to advocate violence in the name of their religion, while atheists may advocate violence to advance any number of causes/beliefs but have never done so in the name of atheism. As I said in my original comments what motivates these people is a level of belief that is so strong it could be classed as a secular religion.
It was Hitler’s belief in the religion of evolution – the monkeys to man hypothesis – that brought about his murderous actions. He rejected God as Creator and believed in survival of the fittest so he killed those he believed were inferior in order to create an ideal super race.
A Biblical viewpoint results in support of the Jewish people. Anybody claiming to be a Christian but who is anti-semetic is lying because they are not following the Bible.
Jesus found religion abhorrent as well. As he told the religious leaders, “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matt 23:33) and “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want ot carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8).
#readTheSatanicVerses
If you’ve not got a copy,
#buyTheSatanicVerses
Amanuensis, that is surely a cryptic and long-winded way of responding.
I know! But have you seen his articles?!
Yeah it’s literary trash.
oh btw he is also a slimy f*5er. Not that he deserved this but, total trash.
This incident shows that knives have no place in our society and should be banned.
Scissors, screwdrivers…? Where there’s a will there’s a way.
Judging by the up-down ticks, you do sarcasm better than I do.
Oh, I know. Terrible, dangerous things. I heard yesterday about someone who was strangled by his neighbour, who used a couple of shoelaces to do it. Velcro does the job, why do we need laces any more? People are so stubborn, they just won’t move with the times! We have the tech!
And that guy in Nice who killed a few people with a truck – why haven’t we banned trucks already? Probably the fault of right wing fascist judges who are anti-bicycle.
Stockings with a coin in the end (so no more cash). A terrible weapon…
(Again, apologies to those not familiar with Dad’s Army!).
Conkers.
Oh no, wait they’ve been banned already, so we’re safe from them. It’s a well-known fact that to stop baaaad things from happening you just need to make them illegal. Job done. Murder is illegal and- ah no hang on
Of course it helps if you have a well funded*, well motivated police force…
*As opposed to defunded.
Scalpels as well… oh, and the wheel. And definitely horses (have you ever read Tess of the D’Urbervilles?).
Silver Blaze was also a very dangerous horse. Horses are baaaad.
“Thank you, Number Six, your work is most excellent. Now, Number Seven, please report on your Eastern Project.”
“Thank you, Number One! We are proceeding as planned, the people have been forgetting about the Evil Muslims, but our agent in New York has created a reason to stir people up again. Obviously, Number Six’s work is to be commended, but people are getting bored of attacking the Unvaccinated and they need another enemy. We have created one.”
“Is it not a bit soon, Number Seven? Project Twin Brothers is still fresh in people’s minds, is it not?”
“We don’t think so, Number One.”
“I hope you are right, Number Seven. For all your sakes.”
strokes cat
Joking aside, I wish Mr Rushdie a speedy recovery. The world needs brave outspoken people like never before.
(Speaking of jokes, who is number 2?!).
The wonder of diversity. I expect one of of the unfettered dinghy divers arriving at Dover, will soon announce his arrival to his Caliphate friends.
This attack is a consequence of the British Establishment’s failure to stand up for free speech and the violence which intolerant, extremist Muslims believe they are justified to take in order to prevent their faith from criticism.
If the Authorities had stamped down hard in the 1980s, we might not find ourselves in a situation where a teacher in Batley, Yorkshire, has been in hiding for around a year now – terrified for his life for doing his job and teaching his pupils.
Remind me what our Government/politicians have done to protect him and stand up to intolerant, violent Muslims.
Oh yes ….. SFA.
Islam’s extreme element proving their critics right again.
Cops name suspect “with sympathies towards the Iranian government” says the daily mail. Oh really? So this is all about politics, is it? Nothing to do with Islam of course.