TL;DR:
Stephen McNamara is transphobic and David McNabb is racist.
Reform UK doubles-down on it's opposition towards Net Zero policies.
Comments include (spoilering for distressing content, just in case):
spoiler
McNamara branded three Scottish equalities organisations as “tax payer funded peadophile (sic) services.”
A response to a 2023 tweet from LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall said: “Time to ‘Stonewall’ the absurdity that being trans is normal. It’s not. You’re all mentall (sic) ill and need psychiatric treatment.”
David McNabb said first minister Humza Yousaf should not be able to hold a rugby trophy because he is “more Pakistani than Scottish.”
McNabb’s account also shared a video from the far right commentator, Katie Hopkins, which accused the UK legal system of treating fellow far right activists
unfairly.
Suspended candidates included Stephen McNamara, who was selected as the candidate for Kilmarnock and Louden, and David McNabb, the party’s candidate for Mid Dunbartonshire.
A Reform UK spokesperson said: “The party has launched an immediate investigation into Mr’s McNabb and McNamara who have been suspended pending the result of that investigation.”
Linked article details public comments made by both these suspended candidates, as well as highlighting some other candidates who are not being investigated.
Reform is not investigating candidates with links to climate change denial groups, or who have made comments denying climate change. These candidates include:
- Kenneth Morton, the candidate for Angus and Perthshire Glens.
- Martyn Greene. who is Reform UK’s Scotland organiser.
A Reform UK spokesperson said: “Reform Scotland is proud to oppose the calamity that are the Net Zero policies."
I feel like I'm living on a completely different planet right now.
I'm really surprised to see that this tobacco ban has so many supporters on all sides of the political spectrum. I am also surprised to see so many people on Lemmy supporting this...
I'm all for making corpos squirm, especially ones which create products that are designed to be addictive (e.g. big tobacco). But let's not go around pretending that these businesses are the only victims of substance bans. For one, substance bans are always disproportionately applied to vulnerable minority groups.
Furthermore, folks who are motivated enough to acquire these substances despite bans will be more vulnerable to exploitation and adverse health effects than they already are. Big tobacco already does a great job of harming and exploiting folks. But at least we can regulate and monitor them. The customer can know with greater certainty exactly what each cigarette contains, you don't get that privilege when acquiring substances illegally. You can also be fairly confident as to the affordability of legal substances versus getting fleeced for your entire income by a dealer who knows personally just how addicted you are.
If nothing else, this is going to end up as a massive waste of time. It is a fools errand to ban substances, and history has shown this time and time again. I do not see any evidence that we have learned from history, of what we will be doing differently to make this work when it has failed in the past. This ban will not last more than a few years at most.