It's being claimed on social media that senior people in Kate Forbes' own campaign team have said that she "f***ed it" with her admission that she would have voted against equal marriage when the issue came before parliament. I'm not sure whether that's true or not. There are two schools of thought -
1) Kate Forbes is so popular due to her personal qualities that episodes like this will only cause her minor harm. The SNP membership will mostly be tolerant of her private views because she has promised not to impose them on the party or the country.
2) The SNP has now become a party of 'liberal intolerance' and it can no longer live with a leader who holds 'unacceptable' views, even in private. The only way someone like Kate Forbes can ever win is by getting out the sackcloth and ashes and publicly recanting her beliefs, which she was clearly never going to do in a million years.
I'm more inclined to theory 1), but let's just assume for the sake of argument that 2) is closer to the mark. In one way perhaps I should be excited, because it's become clear that Ash Regan is the only candidate who has a credible strategy for winning independence in the here and now rather than in some far distant hypothetical future. I therefore want Ash Regan to win, and in theory, anything that harms Kate Forbes should give Ms Regan a better chance of prevailing. The problem is, though, that it also gives Humza Yousaf a much better chance of winning, and realistically he is the leading challenger to Ms Forbes at this moment.
The "ditch the de facto" plotters who are lining up behind Humza Yousaf regard themselves as the SNP realists, and set themselves in contrast to fundamentalist hotheads who would supposedly ruin the chances of independence with their impatience and ill-discipline. Well, it's high time for the realists to get real about one basic truth: you have backed the wrong horse. One thing that should unite all Yessers, whether fundamentalist or gradualist, "transphobe" or "misogynist", is that we need a pro-independence government to remain in power, and Humza Yousaf is - objectively and by some distance - the candidate least likely to deliver that. The polls are unanimous in giving him horrendous personal ratings, and most importantly of all, he is significantly less popular than the Labour leader Anas Sarwar. It is entirely conceivable Mr Yousaf would lead the SNP to defeat in the Holyrood election of 2026, bringing Labour back to power and putting an end to the independence cause for the foreseeable future.
So I say to the self-styled realists: if you really cannot live with Kate Forbes or Ash Regan, then for the love of God pick a different champion. Persuade Angus Robertson to change his mind, or draft in another semi-electable Sturgeon loyalist. But the person to pick up the pieces from any Forbes implosion simply cannot be Humza Yousaf, otherwise independence is sunk, the SNP is sunk, and your precious careers are sunk with them.
* * *
I thought she was being open and honest in her interview, something Sturgeonites will never understand.
ReplyDeleteGood comment. A few friends have quite religious views which I cannot connect with. She was being honest although I disagree with them.
ReplyDeleteThen you're as politically naive as Kate.
ReplyDelete"A 2014 opinion poll published by the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey showed that 68% of Scottish people supported same-sex marriage, while 17% opposed. Support was higher among young people (83%) than among people over 65 (44%), higher among women (72%) than men (63%), and higher among atheists or irreligious people (81%) than among Catholics (60%) or Church of Scotland adherents (59%)."
I can't find a more recent one, but we're talking about a politician who was first elected in 2016. As you can see, the vast majority of Christians nine years ago supported gay marriage. Just not Kate's wee denomination, which is among the 5% of Scotland who fall under "other Christian". There are probably half a dozen other Christian-derived churches jostling in there too.
Any christian, muslim, other faith or atheist politician who opposes public opinion in this way is going to get firehosed. At least she did it straight out of the gates instead of stringing her campaign along.
A very cunning move James to appeal to the self interest of the grifters. I agreed with all you said except when you said " persuade Angus Robertson to change his mind". 1. He would not change his mind and 2. He would be just as bad as Yousaf.
ReplyDeleteIf you want someone who will be pretty good at doing the day job of running the Scotgov then it has to be Forbes. Of course I always thought the real day job of the SNP was freeing Scotland from its colonial status. It seems there are a lot in the SNP who feel that is an annoying thing they have to claim to support to keep their voters on side. A bit like Labour used to promise to make life better for the working poor but never quite did it but keep voting for us and we will get there.
So we have PM s being voted in to power by a small number of people. Now we will have an FM being voted in to power by a small number of people. Will Humza be Scotland's Liz Truss? If so let's hope he is out as quickly as well.
If you want any further reason not to have any confidence in Yousaf the mad lying Skier says Humza thinks the same way as him. Woe is us.
I like Kate Forbes, respect her views and particularly appreciate her honesty. At the end of the day however I personally don’t want the leader of the SNP to be socially conservative. Whether they are religious or not is irrelevant to me.
ReplyDeleteThe problem really is that Kate's not even a socially conservative from today, but from 20 years ago. I wanted her to win until this episode, but I can't live with this. She had to find a way of her religion not influencing her public views. What's next? If they ask her about Darwin is she going to say he was wrong and the world was created 6000 years ago? This is now politically DUP territory. What about her views on abortion rights? She's going to be asked about that as well sooner or later. So it's not just a question of gay marriage and this isn't just an episode that will go away. They'll keep asking her these questions and she'll keep giving answers more appropriate for a politician from the 60's.
DeleteThere are quite a few religious people in politics, but mostly they have found a way of their religion not influencing their public views.
This is a real shame as seemed like a perfect candidate.
I can understand people who say they could never have supported her because of this, but not people who say they were supporting her until yesterday but now can't. Her views were already well known, and it would have been astoundingly presumptuous to just automatically expect her to walk them back. And there was no way of fudging them - she couldn't exactly answer "wibble" to the question "would you have voted for equal marriage?"
Delete" seemed like a perfect candidate" if you think Forbes is a perfect candidate then you must be a de facto Britnat because she is a do nothing about independence candidate. Totally had it with these phoney independence supporters who call themselves gradualists. They think in the long run independence will just happen. In the long run the only certainty is that we all die.
DeleteWell, I obviously didn't know her that well. I even put some money days ago on her winning:) I don't think she stands a chance now. And I also don't think the electorate could live with a FM who (even if only personally but can't act on it because of the party) thinks that abortion should be banned or Darwin taken away from schools. Gay rights are just a niche and most people could live with her views, but many other things affect too many people for her to be electorally successful - not to mention that Labour-inclined press would eat her alive.
DeleteIs anyone seriously suggesting Forbes is going to try and ban gay marriage, ban abortion or teach our children that the world is only 12k years old and dinosaurs are fiction. Get real. Anyway it didn't stop Blowhard Blackford from becoming Westminster leader.
DeleteYou are worried about the wrong thing if you want independence.
The Muslim religion isn't exactly known for its socially liberal views so is that a problem for Yousaf. This is Sturgeons legacy - debates about this stuff like GRR not independence. You should be asking why is it that Yousaf after 10 years in government and supposedly supporting independence he states he has no idea how to obtain independence.
Yousaf and Forbes a couple of careerists who say they want independence in the same way Sturgeon did - to get votes.
FFS. I know those things won't be banned, but if she'll go around saying she's personally against abortion or that the Earth was created 6000 years ago - a party with such a leader won't be able to get to even 10 per cent. Labour will have a field-day. Most people - believe it or not - don't have just independence on their mind when they vote.
DeleteYes - Yousaf following Muslim rules or whatever they have would be a huge problem for him. Is he stating that he'd vote for sharia law or something? From what I can gather - most things he's saying go against Muslim religious orthodoxy.
It isn't religion that is the problem - but when you try to bring religion into the law-making.
But she's not doing that. She's not planning to bring any of those beliefs into law. (And I haven't yet heard her express a belief in creationism anyway.)
DeleteI think a great many are not entirely truthful about what their opinion was on this subject back in the day. Maybe in 2014 when the legislation was passed a majority in some polls but for most of the ten years before certainly was not the case.
ReplyDeleteA bit of conscious amnesia going on.
Because the leader is elected by the membership this will be very telling. If it's Regan I will be surprised but delighted as it means that the party is still made up of people who genuinely want independence as a priority, and they haven't all left yet. If it's Forbes, I'll be relieved, as there will be a chance that the party will be steered back on to course, though I've a feeling that she's a bit of a chess player. If it's Yousaf then all hope is lost, the cause of independence will have been set back for decades, and the only hope will be a long struggle with the likes of Alba and Salvo keeping the flame alive.
ReplyDeleteThe only "evidence" for that sort of thing comes from heavily leading surveys conducted by organisations acting as a front for SSM's opponents.
ReplyDeleteIt should be inconceivable that Forbes entered the race without her team throwing those hard questions at her in practice sessions. If she didn't let them do that until they were satisified her answers wouldn't plough her campaign into the ground, that was a serious problem in and of itself.
Craig Murray makes an excellent point in his latest blog posting when he shows that Humza cunningly avoided the gay marriage vote by setting up an unnecesary meeting on the same date as the marriage vote. Accoriding the Craig, Humza had come under considerable crticism from the Musim comminity in Galsgow becasue of his support for earlier parts of the bill. Funny how the MSM isn't mentioning that....
ReplyDeleteGalsgow, has it been renamed after the gender wokery bill? Chortle McChortle!
DeleteCraig Murray's comment is definitely worth reading. Yousaf's hypocrisy is blatant.
DeleteI am not sure a religious person not believing in Gay marriage is ' Unacceptable' . She is not saying she doesn't think gay people have rights or cannot be together. She just believes that marriage is for men and women. There is a big difference.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't.
DeleteIt's not a big difference to you, it's a huge difference if that's something you care about, I'm sure it'll extend to her thoughts on who should have kids or adopt. I absolutely don't want decisions like these made by someone that's not on my side
DeleteHer problem (most religions had this) was that gay marriage changed the definition of marriage - doesn't seem like much but it affects things like consummation and anullment - important stuff for the religious. There already was civil partnerships which had same status in law as marriage. Cripes even Peter Tatchell was against it at the time.
DeleteI think those backing away from Forbes have been a little disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteHowever truth be told I didn't have much evidence to go on of what Forbes is all about so assumed she was switched on based on what people have been saying for months.
Sorry first impression she lacks charisma and based on the last half day nouse too. I'll back her if she gets it but I don't think she's the one.
Charisma is the one thing I'm sure she does have.
DeleteSo how many people will be voting in this leadership election? Will the election happen before the polis finish their investigation in to the SNP finances? Will Craig Brown drop a few bomb emails out there before the election finishes? Is this part of the reason for Sturgeon's sudden resignation and the speedy leadership election timetable when the SNP constitution stated a lot longer timescale?
ReplyDeleteOne thing looks clear the BBC want Yousaf as next leader. Can this be payback for all the millions Sturgeon gave to the Britnat media and of course Sturgeon just loved the BBC - her key and valued institution she infamously called it. Facts that the big dug and his wee doggers btl always managed to just ignore.
Craig Murray not Craig Brown 😀
DeleteRTE Radio 1 news has just broadcast part of a BBC interview with Kate Forbes in which she said that for herself, having children outside marriage is not the way to go. Fair enough. She can believe anything she wants, but as one commentator said, "She sounds like someone from the DUP".
ReplyDeleteI couldn't care less if she doesn't want children outside marriage, but a prospective FM should have the gumption to realise that people will wonder if she is that clueless about self-presentation, what else is she clueless about.
I'm not surprised the media are gunning for her as she is talented and articulate, but she should have known they would grasp anything to hit her with, and should have realised that people in a post-religious society feel uneasy about 'moral' superiority.
It's really because I'm so disappointed now - I really thought she'd be good - but she was ill-prepared for this - and whoever was prepping her should've figured out that her religious beliefs will be far more interesting to the press than anything else. The answer to that question would be - I have nothing against people having children outside marriage. Her personal belief is irrelevant unless she wants to legislate against people having children outside of marriage. And almost half of children in Scotland are born outside of marriage. These are your voters. This both with her and Yousaf is turning into a proper disaster.
DeleteI'm still not sure who I'll vote for, I don't really want a candidate that admits they would have voted against equal marriage. Her religion is very clear and she either believes that gay folk are equal to straight folk - or doesn't. It looks like she currently leans towards doesn't. That might not be a big deal to you, but it's a huge deal to me.
ReplyDeleteWith all the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about the GRR bill, which has had the risks grossly exaggerated by people that left leaning people should be more weary off. Where nearly every example of issues with the bill - have actually all been about the UK's Equalities Bill - and not with the GRR Bill and its extremely disheartening.
I remember the same arguments, by the same haters, all being deployed during the section 28 debates. I am dreading all these issues coming back in the next 10 years, and I wasnt to make sure we have a First Minister that supports LGBT+ rights, and doesn't want to roll them back
"It looks like she currently leans towards doesn't. That might not be a big deal to you, but it's a huge deal to me."
DeleteIf that's addressed to me, it warrants an apology. By all means take issue with opinions I've actually expressed, but not ones I haven't. If I thought Kate Forbes regarded gay people as unequal, my opinion of her would be different - but I flatly disagree with your belief that she does.
Forbes has f-ed it. Prior to this contest, most people did not know her personal views. I'm an SNP member and I didn't know (I don't take an interest in politicians' personal beliefs, religious or otherwise). After the last two days, everybody knows. Whatever her approval ratings were a week ago, they've surely tanked now. And with no interference from anyone on the other team. Purely from being asked straightforward questions.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'd love to see someone else enter the running at this late stage (not that I expect it will happen). Either way, Forbes is a lost hope.
Then since the over 65s are the largest group for NO then she might not be bad for indy. As for being firehosed so what? Might be quite good to be able to get a truthful answer from a politician for a change. You can't have an inclusive society if you exclude people from it. As for her views on creationism I have no idea but she's a Free Church member not a red neck from the Bible belt, they do know that the Earth goes round the Sun for example. Anyway I'm for Ash anyway for a variety of reasons but going back to Forbes for a second if you listen to her interview it can be interpreted as saying that she thinks we already have that mandate. Unfortunately there was no follow up question. Time to keep our hair on and focus on the prize INDEPENDENCE - that should be the only consideration.
ReplyDeleteWell, Forbes' interview has certainly exposed Yousaf's unsuitablility for a leadership role. He was too quick out of the gate in attacking Forbes' stance on gay marriage etc. Craig Murray's article exposes Yousaf as an out-and-out hypocrite, too wayward for any responsibility.
ReplyDeleteWe're in a situation where we are having to hope and fight for someone to emerge out of this situation who offers a chance of putting independence back on the rails. It seems that there is one such person. This is an election. Self inflicted wounds by others than the one we need to see elected are 'good things', end of, in this context.
ReplyDeleteSupport Regan and discuss the other matters in the cafe or pub for now !
I am more aligned with Forbes in terms of policy. I think the government should he less involved in our lives and the rights of everyone to make their own decisions should be protected, which I believe would come from Forbes. But it's hard to reconcile that with some of her personal views which I strongly disagree with. Even getting past that, these are mostly just too controversial in 2023 to the point they would overshadow everything. Forbes is just too easy to criticise and mock.
ReplyDeleteBut the huge other side to this is I agree with this blog that the signs are there of Humza Yousaf being a disaster. Low approval ratings, baggage from his ministerial career, from the nursery, generally coming across as arrogant. He is a very 2013 type of SNP future leader and I think he stopped being taken seriously by many years ago. So the fact that SNP parliamentarians are rallying around him of all people is bizarre and he will win by not being Forbes. Then on a personal level, I believe Humza would be even more of an identity politics obsessive that Sturgeon was.
After eleven years as an SNP member I think this is it.
Some WGD numpties finally realising that the number one priority of The National has always been to support Sturgeon and her gang. Hence their ignorant promoting of Yousaf and attacks on Forbes. Hence the ever reliable Sturgeon supporter the big dog getting his gig in The National.
ReplyDeleteIf you want independence vote Regan. If you want GRR vote Yousaf ( spoiler alert he won't deliver it anyway) but you get a diddy who has no intention of delivering independence and the best bet for GRR is paradoxically independence but people like Mike Lothian fail to see that.
Perhaps Mike should campaign to make the SNP the Scottish Gender Identification party if that is his priority before independence.
Nothing wrong with not voting for someone because you think their views are abhorrent. That doesn’t make you a ‘libtard’.
ReplyDeleteIf someone said I don’t believe in interracial marriage but I definitely won’t block it or deport people. Well I’m sorry I wouldn’t vote for them. Despite what they think of independence.
Obviously this is a slightly more extreme example.
Personally I think Kate Forbes has too many bat shit views. I’m not gonna take someone’s word that they wont come into policy that would be naive.
As for the other one. She seems alright. Very strong words on Indy. Being a skeptic for new gender laws is not the same as being a religious fundamentalist.
Indy is my number one priority and I’d still vote Forbes if it was gauranteed to bring about Indy but it will hinder the cause imo because most people want modern values out of a leader.
Anonymous a very fair and well reasoned post. I would add that in terms of trust I suggest it would be better to be more wary of liars as they will hide their bat shit views until they are ready to implement them.
Deletegood point. That's what people don't realise about Farage. If he didn't 'hold back' he'd be Nick Griffin or worse.
Delete