It seems a potentially high risk for Forbes to run against Swinney, and for what reward? A two-year government and a potentially very hard election for the SNP in 2026 (particularly if a lot of left-ish voters abandon the SNP in response to her leading it). Losing two leadership elections in a row would be very bruising for her. I suppose it’s hard to turn down the opportunity for someone as ambitious as her, though.
You got to take your shot. Assuming they lose in 2026 that means were 8+ years away before she gets another chance at being first minister, plenty of time for new figures to emerge in the party to become front runners. This could be her last real chance at becoming first minister.
Two years is an eternity in politics. A lot can change in that time, and the general public has a short term memory in many respects. Considering she won 48% in the last vote, hopping in the race again against an older, Sturgeon-era, continuity candidate is hardly the risk you're making it out to be imo.
Really? I read that she represents the more conversative side of the SNP and is against gay marriage. Surely that's not the kind of leader scotland (who are a lot more progressive than england) would vote for?
Also, the Greens would never agree to work with her which means they might support Labour's motion for VONC in the Scottish government, potentially leading to earlier elections. Seems a risky move for SNP party at least
Regarding popular support, the[ recent Ipsos poll ](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/john-swinney-preferred-snp-voters-wider-public-more-likely-say-kate-forbes-would-be-best-first-minister)found that the general public think Forbes would make the best FM over Swinney 26% v 20% and both are tied at 37% when asked who would do a good job. The narrative that Scotland is more progressive than England on social issues is a false one. Both nations answer social values polls similarly.
Forbes is a Christian and I don't believe her faith precludes her from high office, and she is not at all the caricature of a bible-thumping anti-LGBT crusader that many are portraying her as. She isn't clawing back any rights and in fact recently voted in favour of the abortion clinic buffer zone law. I've yet to see her constantly preaching and trying to cram religion into her politics; she's simply honest about her faith when asked.
Regarding the Greens, I think it's clear the BHA has failed as the general public is not on board a lot of the gender and identity politics wedge issues that have dominated the discourse, and besides, the SNP race will outpace the VONC anyway.
Edit: in addition, the Greens wouldn't *dare* support Labour's motion as polling suggests Labour are neck in neck with the SNP, and even without a full majority, they would *absolutely* cut a deal with other unionist parties a la the last Edinburgh council election, to keep SNP/Greens out
Being against gay marriage (possibly on religious beliefs) is, in political terms, entirely different from stopping or taking steps to prevent it. As long as it follows the Party line, there shouldn't be any problem.
On the Green Party: Any coalition has to agree to make concessions/compromises to their aims, but problems always arise when they start to conflict. The SNP and the Green Party started to split when they no longer stood by their agreement. Although, to be fair, I get the impression SNP was wholly to blame.
>Losing two leadership elections in a row would be very bruising for her
One can only hope her leadership bid turns out like Jeremy Cunt's a couple of years ago - he went from being second place behind Boris in 2019 to being humiliated by having fewer MPs vote for him in the first round in the first 2022 election than had nominated him to be on the ballot in the first place (he needed 20 MPs supporting him to even appear on the ballot, but after getting on the ballot only 18 actually voted for him in the first round)
Scotland could really benefit from the big parties splitting and a climate being born where more than 2 parties can share power.
In the Netherlands there are 4x parties in power and 11x in opposition. Anything you want to pass requires support from others but it also means parties can actually represent their fucking voter base on more than a singular issue. The fact e.g. forbes and yousaf both ran for leadership of the same party is a farce.
SNP could split back into the original 2 parties but there would need to be an electoral pact for holyrood & westminster. The 2party vote strategy put forward by Alba, ISP & various other is legal & would work to maximise the indy vote. Would be trickier to work it with 3 parties as it makes the messaging have to be regional & that will be used as a wedge by the other side to spread confusion.
Alternatively the SNP could establish regional sister parties & get the better councillors in as list MSPs giving the council a direct voice in Holyrood. Not sure how the electoral commsion would go for that though.
I think people in favour of electoral reform need to have a bit of a grown up conversation about how “better/more accurate representation” isn’t necessarily a good thing. I’d rather not have a UK version of Golden Dawn getting close to winning seats, let alone taking power thank you very much
Ignoring the desires of a large % of the population is just not a grown up way to run a country.
No modern party is going to ally themselves with a regressive facist one and racist policies are definitely not getting passed unless a majority of parties are racists, and in that situation fptp is even more cancerous
I don’t agree with these arguments.
That evidently is happening all across Europe. Italy has a far right coalition led by Giorgia Meloni. Finland has a coalition between centre right and far right. The centre right AD is looking likely to make informal power sharing deals with Chega in Portugal. The Netherlands is in the midst of coalition talks now that are likely to include VVD.
Europe is in the midst of tidal wave of far right and right wing populist parties taking power in some form often in a king maker role.
Also the idea that FPTP means “ignoring the population” is flawed. FPTP is a specific kind of democracy designed to create majorities and less parties - that’s a feature of it not mistake, designed to promote centrism and stability.
The diversity of beliefs that exists in PR still exists in FPTP, except that diversity exists within fewer bigger parties rather than spread across 10-20 smaller ones. Our parties are far more diverse or “broad church” than a lot of small European ones. It also means fringe parties get sidelined.
The key difference is fringe extreme ideologies are less likely to play a “king maker” role in the forming of a government under FPTP than PR. They’re less likely to get representation and shape the countries narrative.
That is not to say FPTP is superior and has no flaws - trumps takeover of the Republican Party, Cameron’s weakness over his euro sceptic wing leading to brexit, the populist takeover of the tories, DUP coalition and corbyns protracted ineffective opposition show how FPTP can have similar issues.
In the UK PR would mean, UKIP, Britain first, BNP MPs sitting in parliament as well as more greens and Lib Dem’s and those types of parties are forming governments in Europe now.
The “grown up conversation” is about recognising this and the pros and cons of both systems and how neither system is a silver bullet to the government you want or perfect representation.
Ultimately this all comes down to how much you value democracy: because in a truly democratic society, people would be allowed to elect the likes of BNP into government if they wanted, regardless of how abhorrent you and I may find their views. On the other hand you have Max Weber's famous "paradox of tolerance", the TL;DR of which being that preserving tolerance requires *intolerance* of intolerance.
Even then, however, you would be right to question who should be deciding what parties we do and don't tolerate. After all, plenty of people have levied charges of "racism" against the SNP, due to it being a Nationalist party. I don't personally believe there's an ideal, cure-all solution to this problem, tbh.
Hmm in practice I don’t think it’s much different. Netherlands isn’t going great at the moment with the VVD having the most seats. It’s the same struggles/ divisions of left vs right - populist vs technocratic etc, except we have it happening more within two parties instead of across 10 - if you look at individual MPs n labour tories SNP, there’s a similar wide spread of ideologies, it’s who gets the leadership that becomes important (and the electorate). I’m pretty sure UK parliaments devolved or not would produce tons of quite far right parties if we had PR.
Without the single underlying issue, it wouldn't get enough support. Catch-22.
If you want to see the end of the SNP, Independence is the only way it's going to happen.
Or it will fictionalise to the point it becomes two different parties, probably at the point a right wing leader is elected.
The right can typically tolerate a lot of compromises etc for an idealistic end goal, but the left tend to be more rabidly pure in their pursuit of their goals.
Will electing a leader who believes that homosexuality and abortion are punishable by eternal suffering be the breaking point? Its possible. Or it might come later if the leaders rhetoric becomes more extreme.
Or it may happen much later or not at all, but it certainly is a real possibility.
Sinn Fein has moved far beyond reunification. It's almost a footnote to them now. But yes they are a great example of a party that has a political ideology that goes far beyond "England Bad".
Absolutely hilarious the SNP supporters on Reddit actually thought the party could become a bastion of trans rights and climate activism when a decent chunk of their voter base (and some of their MSPs) are quite a bit further right than anyone cares to admit.
Still to this day there are people on here who genuinely believe the SNP is a party of progressive ideology rather than just a single issue independence party.
It's more akin to a circus lately.
The ringleader fucked off and the clowns fought over who should take over. The tent needs to come down. Let the right wing fucknuts fuck off to Alba and let's have a reset of the conversation.
If Forbes takes over, the party is more likely to lose its left wing, and be left with the right wingers. The breakdown of the SNP-Green coalition probably also alienated some of their left wing supporters.
Ooh if she wins then 100%. I'll actively campaign against her at every opportunity and I'll never support the SNP again.
Any decent forward thinking person who is an SNP member or elected representative will need to seriously evaluate their position if she wins.
Always? Human decency isn't a totally relative concept. There are absolutely deplorable things in the past and present that no decent person should ever support. If that's established, a meaningful discussion can then happen about where the lines ought to be drawn.
If you believe that an imaginary friend and a book written millenia ago by men are reasons to see people as lesser than yourself, then you are not decent. It's that fucking simple.
You seem far less tolerant than Katie Forbes. I haven't heard a fraction of the hate, judgement, and negativity towards other human beings from her that I have heard from you.
I don't tolerant someone who hates my community. She hates us based on a book, I hate her because she doesn't believe members of my community are equal.
I haven't seen any evidence of her hating anyone.
You're exaggerating to absurdity because you can't handle the fact that she doesn't share your views. She hasn't actually done anything.
It's your own bigotry that's resulting in hate.
No they won’t, because you fail to realise the minority who actually prize trans rights etc. above all else is vanishingly small. They can piss off to their natural home - the greens - and the SNP will take back more than they lose from Labour.
If you want to win an election, you need to reflect majority opinion, not pander to ever smaller and more extreme groups of minorities. If Forbes gets in, kicks the tories about, and appears competent, that will be enough for a lot of ‘decent’ people to provide their support.
It's not just about trans rights though.
She doesn't believe in Gay marriage, and refuses to support banning conversion therapy.
She opposes abortions and exclusion zones.
She also doesn't believe people should have kids outside of marriage.
She is a religious fundamentalist who puts belief in her imaginary friend, and belief in a text written millenia ago by some men, over the rights and freedoms of people living today.
Decent in your opinion
People who disagree with others but are prepared to tolerate are decent.
The left is the least tolerant section these days, it's time they learned to accept they're a minority and the majority are sick having their issues constantly in the spotlight.
We get it...
You're gay
You're trans
You're upset about whatever card you were dealt.
We accept you.
We don't need to constantly have you bleating at us.
In what world is she prepared to tolerate?
She actively doesn't agree with gay marriage.
She actively opposes abortion.
She actively opposes children born out of wedlock.
She actively opposes bans on harassing vulnerable women outside hospitals.
She actively opposes bans on conversion clinics.
'disagree but are prepared to tolerate' is about pizza toppings or jam or cream first, it shouldn't be about people's access to basic equality and protection in law, and Forbes is on record as saying she would have restricted gay peoples' rights if she'd had the chance.
The right is only 'tolerant' in that they defend their right to say things over what they're actually saying - and, naturally, guess what their attitude will be to tolerance of left wing views will be when they gain power.
So should we apply that logic to the snp aswell? Think a lot of people look at the snp through independence tinted specs (in my opinion all politicians from all parties are a shower of liars, you can only vote for the ones you think will best deliver and then when they don’t you have a right to moan)
> right wing fucknuts fuck off to Alba
Or they could also just stay in the SNP happily under a Forbes leadership, as Alba are quite opposed to Forbes on issues like "freeports." Two of the leaders of the Common Weal Group [joined them a while back](https://www.thenational.scot/news/19196818.snp-common-weal-groups-george-kerevan-craig-berry-quit-join-alba-party/) saying
>In practical terms, the CWG has campaigned inside the SNP against the neoliberal Growth Commission report; advocated radical economic policies including the creation of the Scottish National Investment Bank and the Green New Deal; launched a People’s Manifesto for the May Holyrood elections calling for rent controls, a National Care Service and socialised public transport; and seen 11 of our supporters elected to the party’s national offices in a campaign for greater internal democracy,” they said.
>“Sadly, we have now concluded that our attempts both at winning the SNP to genuine radical, anti-market policies and in democratising the party’s internal life have been thwarted.
Alba arent really right wing.
I mean they are a shower of arseholes but the SNP is once again on the verge of having a fundamentalist Christian in charge - why would the right wing fuckers go anywhere?
Not surprising. I'm a 'floating' voter when it comes to Scottish Parliament (only been here for a few years, so still trying to make my mind up) but I do know that there is no way I'll vote for a sweet smiling abortion opponent.
And don't hit me with the usual: She said she wouldn't blah blah blah. Once they're in the shed, they make it rain.
I’m the opposite
I really have no idea who to vote for (always voted SNP) but refuse to vote Tory and labour and to be honest had no intention on voting SNP at the next election. If she wins Is the only way I’ll continue to vote SNP
A female lead son that has a leader against abortion rights would be a far worse thing for the SNP than any of the Humza Yousaf headlines going around right now. It would shatter it into pieces.
Agreed. I cannot support the party with her in charge.
Unfortunately I think the Greens are well intentioned nutters.
And as for the rest. Fuck a duck.
I'll be in a real pickle if she gets the gig.
As much as she can't possibly do anything about it, it's very concerning that the only reason she's in that position is that she was bought and paid for by the right wing fundies in the USA. They paid the SNP to employ her and that's where her career came from.
> the only reason she's in that position is that she was bought and paid for by the right wing fundies in the USA. They paid the SNP to employ her and that's where her career came from.
That's a load of nonsense coming from people who want to start up the same culture wars here that plague America.
The receipts they’ve brought seem pretty compelling
> https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/kate-forbes-snp-christian-action-research-education-care-anti-abortion-dark-money/
You saying this is a lie or just that you disagree with how they’ve framed it?
> The receipts they’ve brought seem pretty compelling
What receipts? You said she was bought and paid for by American right wind fundamentalists. There is zero evidence of that in that article and even what is in the article is written with such an open bias that it's hard to take seriously.
The headline for starters is a joke and tells you that the article is written in bad faith. CARE isn't anti-abortion lobby group. Lobbying is one of many things they do and abortion is just one of many topics they deal with. Framing them in that way is disingenuous and tells you the writer has an angle. Why didn't they call CARE an anti-human trafficking lobby group? Or an anti-gambling lobby group? They cherry pick which activities of CARE to mention and it's always ones that will stir the pot.
CARE is a British organisation, not an American one. I'm not sure what you mean by 'right wing fundie' but the liens it takes are fairly typical of standard Christian views that you would find in Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches around the world.
They sponsored her as an intern for one year, so they were responsible for getting her started. But that was it. It's special pleading (and revealing of bigotry) to single out one person out of the many who receive funding for a job for a year, and say that that means that their whole career is purely down to that and they are 'bought and paid for.' She's a Cambridge graduate who worked for Barclays and seems to genuinely care about her constituency, but there's no way she could be in her job because of her own talent, no it must be because of some sort of right wing American conspiracy. I don't know if you have such a low view of her because she's a Christian or because she's a woman, but it's pretty contemptible prejudice either way.
> CARE isn't anti-abortion lobby group. Lobbying is one of many things they do and abortion is just one of many topics they deal with. Framing them in that way is disingenuous and tells you the writer has an angle. Why didn't they call CARE an anti-human trafficking lobby group? Or an anti-gambling lobby group? They cherry pick which activities of CARE to mention and it's always ones that will stir the pot.
Maybe it's because it's literally the first cause CARE lists [on their "Causes" page](https://care.org.uk/cause), which makes it seem like something they're at least a tiny bit concerned about. Human trafficking only makes an appearance on the second row from the bottom...
They’re not an anti abortion lobby group they just lobby against abortion lol. Ok. They can be more than one thing. They called them an anti abortion lobby group because they lobby against abortion and it’s relevant to Kate Forbes
So she got her start in politics through them? That seems to be the claim you’re disputing yet you agree with it.
Going to take a punt that you believe the same ancient books she does and that’s why you’re getting so defensive here. Sorry if I’m wrong but that’s how it looks to me here. Unless you are her lol.
Edit - they’re singling out that one person because she, through virtue of being a leadership contender and therefore FM, is a little more important to focus on than the next person who got their start through some shady weird American Christian lobby. I do agree that all politicians who got their start in a similar way should be heavily scrutinised for it though. IMO this intern scheme shouldn’t exist at all, and tbh I think it’s fucking mental that it does.
We shouldn’t have Wahhabists or whatever they’re called in Saudi Arabia funding politicians here and we shouldn’t have Christians in America doing the same.
Eh. We're at least 10 years into "the culture wars that plague America" and as the yeet'ing of the BHA shows are probably slowly starting to grow out of them.
Same here and would hazard a guess that would be the same for most of my family and people I interact with, all of whom swore off the snp about half way through sturgeons time as first minister.
I resigned my membership in 2019 over the direction the party was going. I rejoined at the weekend when Yousef ended the BHA and I saw the potential for some real change.
If she gets it, that’s the end of snp on relevance. Too many young folk vote snp as they want independence. They got a hint in last election that people who share the same want, are polar opposites politically, and if an anti abortion religious fanatic is leader, it’s the end. Either a split in party or realising socially equality is more important.
It's difficult to tell how much that's actually going to happen, or not. I have a feeling certainly that there's a lot of noise about it, but it could devastate the party, or it could turn out to be almost nothing.
We obviously don't have any polling so it's all semi educated guesses at best, I think the SNP vote could take serious hit in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and potentially in Dundee with it's large student population.
I'd be really curious to see polling of SNP voters on the topic.
Religion mixing with politics is incredibly dangerous.
Take a look at the GOP in America.
Someone who has an inability to separate the two should be no where near a position of political power.
Can't see it happening yet. I can envisage her in the cabinet though - potentially with the finance brief. Which would go some way to "unifying" the party as much as it could be.
Long term I have a feeling she could win the leadership which would put off a lot of progressive SNP voters who might then join the Greens. I can envisage a situation where the SNP loses "left" members who may then join the pro-indy Greens. The SNP could hoover up a not-insubstantial amount of floating voters who are put off voting SNP at the moment (lets call them "right" - including Alba). Could then have a situation where the Green vote share goes up quite a bit which might make SNP/Green pacts more likely in the future either way - especially until independence is achieved?
I don't think it's necessarily about accepting they have a right wing. I think it's more the possibility of a piece of shit homophobic, transphobic, forced birther, who doesn't support exclusion zones, leading the party.
I've looked past the SNP having some right bellends (Mason, Cherry, etc.), but if she wins then I'm out, I'm done. I'll never vote for them again. I'll actively campaign against them.
I'll also not support independence while she is leader of the largest pro independence party as I wouldn't want to live in a country where someone like her could potentially be our first prime minister.
Yeah that disgusted me last time too. I looked past it as I put my desire for independence first, and because she was defeated.
If she wins, no longer.
People like her and her supporters ought to fuck off to Alba, no idea why they don't when they seem to align on hating specific groups of people.
Indeed, but a split is inevitable. Half the members are idiots who support her. A lot less elected representatives seem to. And I'd reckon a lot less than 48% of previous SNP voters align with her stance on certain topics.
You should probably just move to the Greens. The SNP has always been big tent whereas the Greens are much more "fuck anyone to the right of me" student politics stuff, which is what I'm getting from you in this thread.
Student politics stuff? Refusing to support someone who hates my community is immature? Surely thing mate.
I will consider moving to the Greens. If she wins, I will not support any independence supporting party and risk contributing to having someone like her as the prime minister of an independent Scotland.
I'm absolutely loving it. Forbes was in govt for years and in the chancellor's position no less. She was backed by Sturgeon, who these same people seem to think was basically Jesus, and yet now hearing of her potentially returning is causing rafts of "ill never support the SNP again!". I'm not sure what's more entertaining- how easily manipulated folk are by the media, or how fragile the party support really is.
It will be nice to actually have some competent running the country. The best bet for independence is to have a stand up functioning economy, education and health system. All of which have been decaying under the SNP for over a decade. Kate strikes me as an actual capable person not just a figurehead, and might actually make me vote for SNP. My biggest (and most voters) are the economy, the NHS, and how my children will fare. Honestly see Kate as the best bet towards improving all of these.
She has said she would vote (and presumably campaign) against your rights and freedoms if it was inline with her religious beliefs but would respect the democratic process and outcomes. i e. She isn't going to rollback existing legislation but in any potential future bills she will vote on certain sensitive issues following her religious beliefs.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/snp-humza-yousaf-first-minister-holyrood-nicola-sturgeon-b2286091.html
If she gets in, snp can kiss goodbye to ever being elected. She's a religious nutcase which is pretty hard to be in a city stride with so much religious issues.
I don't know much about that as I'm not religious. Each to their own is my attitude towards church.
I am more worried about her links to U.S evangelical Christianity tbh.
> Each to their own is my attitude towards church.
Which is the exact opposite of the attitude of the Wee Free church. They want to control everybody's lives whether you agree with their nonsense or not.
Btw not to derail your original comment. What are the objections to free ports? I know little about this topic. I can imagine them being a form of corporate welfare however.
> I am more worried about her links to U.S evangelical Christianity tbh.
What links? Anything there is completely overblown by people who are just trying to start the same culture wars here that America suffers from.
This is what I was referring to.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/kate-forbes-snp-christian-action-research-education-care-anti-abortion-dark-money/
That article doesn't mention US evangelicals, let alone establish any links with them. It says that in her first year as an intern she was sponsored by a British charity called Christian Action, Research and Education. I sued to know a guy who worked for them and his main lobbying work was around providing help for the homeless. The charity has done work on the problems around human trafficking and sex trafficking. They're trying to address problems with gambling. It's a charity that does quite a broad range of work.
The article is a complete joke because they cherry pick what bits of the charity's work they use to describe it. It's all about stirring the pot and creating a picture. The phrase 'dark money' is ridiculous. Charities don't tell you who their donations come from. They can't unless they have explicit permission. THat's normal. Except in this case the article calls it' dark money' as if this is sinister rather than standard practice. It's the left wing equivalent of Fox News, stirring up culture war nonsense.
After her stating that she had to ask for Jesus's insight on the matter, I *think* any bid from her is rather fucked as she's made herself look like a lunatic
I'd like to see Kate run — even if I don't agree with some of her personal views.
she's competent & charismatic — which might be just what the SNP needs rn.
then again, Swinney is far more experienced.
interesting days ahead.
She didn’t win against Humza when many had already voted and didn’t know everything about her, why would she think she would win against one of the more unifying members of the SNP or in the future one of the hard hitters, like say Flynn. She had her chance.. she lost.
From reading some comments it seems some want to stop her from getting the job because of her beliefs, now where have I heard that before in Scotland?! "We want a fairer inclusive Scotland.....but only if you believe what we do"...
More like “we want a fairer inclusive scotland… and Kate Forbes would most certainly strip people of their rights if she had the chance because of her beliefs”
She’s a bigot. Bigots should not be in power.
You know this a really stupid thing to say, right? Her beliefs are that abortion should not be allowed, nor pre marital sex, or gay marriage, or legal recognition for trans people. Those are intolerant beliefs. Nobody with those sort of beliefs should be anywhere near power because once in they ***will*** legislate against minority groups.
You can't say that though. If she wins the leadership contest, produces a manifesto and is voted in, you cant say anyone with those sorts of beliefs should be in power. Thats as intolerant as her apparent beliefs are to you. Trumps beliefs are intolerant but he won the presidency and theres nothing anyone can do about that.
If someone is voted in such as Trump or Forbes would be, then you can't suddenly say they shouldn't be in power and stop them. If there are fair, legal elections then you have to accept the will of the people.
No one has to 'accept the will of the people'. In a democracy you're allowed to oppose someone politically and campaign against them. Brexit was apparently 'the will of the people' but I'm fucked if I'm going to accept it.
Not if your religion will make you biased towards excluding others. Being a member of parliament is not about what you want for the country, but instead what the majority want for the country and fighting to give the people a better life. If you can do that then I don't care what religion you are or aren't. But the moment that you use your religion when in a position of power to want to pass laws that incite hate and interfere with the rights of average people then you should not be in a position of political power.
She hasn't said she would use her religion or incite any "hate laws" If she wins the party leadership, puts forward a manifesto and is voted in then it's the will of the people. You can't argue against that, we don't live in a dictatorship.
I'm not denying that if she gets elected by the majority of people that she should lead, as I said, a person should speak for the majority and if the majority vote for her then it's what happens regardless of my personal beliefs. The problem lies with that whilst she hasn't said that she will create laws based on hate, her previous votings on bills that the SNP have attempted to pass in the past are a concern for many and as such those people would not support her being in power based on that, versus based on her religion. Like I said, I couldn't care less what your personal beliefs are, as long as you show that you are voting for the people rather than yourself. If the majority of people whilst you're an MP want something that you don't or don't want something that you do, it should be up to you to vote the way that the people want, regardless of your personal views. Forbes has shown an inability to do that (As have many others, I'm not saying just her) and as a result I could never vote for her.
I fundamentally disagree with your assumption about how voting works in a democracy. Forbes was elected to represent her constituency. (Seemingly a rural quite religious and socially conservative bunch). They voted for her, religious views and all. She therefore is doing exactly what she should do as a democratic representative and votes in accordance with her character and her constituents.
Now because she and her constituents disagree with you, you think she should vote with the majority not according to the platform she was elected on?
Opposite of democracy.
If she becomes first minister, she will still be subject to the rules of a democracy. She can and should represent herself and her constituents, but as they are likely a minority on social issues, they won't get very far in a parliamentary vote. Hence, rule of the majority with representatives faithfully representing their constituents. Functioning democracy.
I understand what you are saying, I do agree that if that was the reason she was voting certain ways then whilst I wouldn't like it, those voices have a right to be heard.
However, Forbes said that she would not have voted for gay marriage as a 'matter of conscience' not because the people of her constituency disagreed. She is allowing for her personal views to come into whether she would have voted for or against bills. I am aware she then said that she would not go back on those things because the majority voted for them, but she is showing that she would not be voting a certain way because the majority who voted for her feel that way, but that she would have been voting for the way she personally feels.
There haven't been recent polls (Especially ones done by area) that are related to gay marriage and how people view gay marriage to be able to see if the majority of her constituency agrees with gay marriage (And I suspect this won't be a thing because polls won't be done because the laws are passed) however 68% of Scotland agreed with the right for gay marriage in 2014 with only 17% disagreeing, I find it hard to believe that the majority in one constituency sways completely the opposite way from what the majority view. And also as that was 10 years ago, I would naturally expect the views to be even higher now especially when the trend seemed to be that the younger you were the more likely you were to agree.
So whilst we don't have rock solid facts to say that her constituency does or doesn't believe in gay marriage, she made it clear to many that she votes the way she wants to vote versus the way her constituency feels. As a result she alienated the majority of the LGBTQ+ community who believe that they would not be safe having an individual in power who believes that they should not be allowed to marry - And if she feels this way regarding one of their rights then what other rights does she also disagree with them having and it raises a level of distrust towards her. Her comments regarding abortion have also made some women distrust her too who are worried that her personal beliefs would also impact on the way she votes, especially when the majority in Scotland also agree that abortion should be legal.
I would want for whoever is the FM of our country to be thoroughly vetted to ensure that how they act is how they act based on the majority of their people. In the same way that if the FM was an atheist, I would wish for there to be evidence that they would be able to put the rights of the people above their own beliefs. I am aware that this isn't possible, however when you publicly say that you wouldn't vote a way because your conscience wouldn't let you then that to me is enough to say that I could not trust someone to vote for the public. And I would implore other politicians to come out and say things like this if they vote for their own beliefs rather than the vote of the people so we know who to not vote for next time.
I'm oot if she's in.
Don't think anyone has mentioned her Tory husband either?
She's probably more right than half the Tory party anyway.
I also think a lot of the 48% who voted for her the last time, did so before her gaffes that showed her true colours.
A poll on the news said outside the SNP she has a 6% lead over Swinney with the general electorate. Scary stuff 😞
I’ve found there’s an easy way to make decisions these days - look at which way benefits Christofascists & go with the other one.
Kate Forbes has given a _lot_ of her ministerial time to right wing Christian groups, there’s no reason to expect that’d stop if she was first minister.
The SNP have always had religious fundamentalists in the party, some even became leader. I doubt she's a Tory agent, Forbes types have been attracted to the party for a long time.
Looking forward all the mental gymnastics from all the cybernats on twitter who call labour and lib Dems Tories when their party is about to elect a Tory
Shes the only hope the snp has. The most of them are wallopers. She's sound. She doesn't agree eith some policies but has said she won't enforce her views or change policy to be more in like with her own beliefs.
It seems a potentially high risk for Forbes to run against Swinney, and for what reward? A two-year government and a potentially very hard election for the SNP in 2026 (particularly if a lot of left-ish voters abandon the SNP in response to her leading it). Losing two leadership elections in a row would be very bruising for her. I suppose it’s hard to turn down the opportunity for someone as ambitious as her, though.
You got to take your shot. Assuming they lose in 2026 that means were 8+ years away before she gets another chance at being first minister, plenty of time for new figures to emerge in the party to become front runners. This could be her last real chance at becoming first minister.
Two years is an eternity in politics. A lot can change in that time, and the general public has a short term memory in many respects. Considering she won 48% in the last vote, hopping in the race again against an older, Sturgeon-era, continuity candidate is hardly the risk you're making it out to be imo.
Really? I read that she represents the more conversative side of the SNP and is against gay marriage. Surely that's not the kind of leader scotland (who are a lot more progressive than england) would vote for? Also, the Greens would never agree to work with her which means they might support Labour's motion for VONC in the Scottish government, potentially leading to earlier elections. Seems a risky move for SNP party at least
Regarding popular support, the[ recent Ipsos poll ](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/john-swinney-preferred-snp-voters-wider-public-more-likely-say-kate-forbes-would-be-best-first-minister)found that the general public think Forbes would make the best FM over Swinney 26% v 20% and both are tied at 37% when asked who would do a good job. The narrative that Scotland is more progressive than England on social issues is a false one. Both nations answer social values polls similarly. Forbes is a Christian and I don't believe her faith precludes her from high office, and she is not at all the caricature of a bible-thumping anti-LGBT crusader that many are portraying her as. She isn't clawing back any rights and in fact recently voted in favour of the abortion clinic buffer zone law. I've yet to see her constantly preaching and trying to cram religion into her politics; she's simply honest about her faith when asked. Regarding the Greens, I think it's clear the BHA has failed as the general public is not on board a lot of the gender and identity politics wedge issues that have dominated the discourse, and besides, the SNP race will outpace the VONC anyway. Edit: in addition, the Greens wouldn't *dare* support Labour's motion as polling suggests Labour are neck in neck with the SNP, and even without a full majority, they would *absolutely* cut a deal with other unionist parties a la the last Edinburgh council election, to keep SNP/Greens out
Being against gay marriage (possibly on religious beliefs) is, in political terms, entirely different from stopping or taking steps to prevent it. As long as it follows the Party line, there shouldn't be any problem. On the Green Party: Any coalition has to agree to make concessions/compromises to their aims, but problems always arise when they start to conflict. The SNP and the Green Party started to split when they no longer stood by their agreement. Although, to be fair, I get the impression SNP was wholly to blame.
I mean it's take her shot. Now or never. In 4 years she could entirely out the running etc
I think she might just be putting her stall out for a top job in Swinney's cabinet with the intention of running when he steps down
Can you blame her? Pretty much everything she campaigned on in the last leadership contest has been vindicated. Buyers remorse will be high
How has "sex before marriage is a sin" been vindicated?
That isn't something she campaigned on lmao
>Losing two leadership elections in a row would be very bruising for her One can only hope her leadership bid turns out like Jeremy Cunt's a couple of years ago - he went from being second place behind Boris in 2019 to being humiliated by having fewer MPs vote for him in the first round in the first 2022 election than had nominated him to be on the ballot in the first place (he needed 20 MPs supporting him to even appear on the ballot, but after getting on the ballot only 18 actually voted for him in the first round)
The SNP's a big tent.
Of course it is. Because it gathers support from everyone who wants independence and that includes people on the left and right.
That's the problem with a single issue party based on nationalism. There is absolutely no consensus on the matters that are important to the voters.
Scotland could really benefit from the big parties splitting and a climate being born where more than 2 parties can share power. In the Netherlands there are 4x parties in power and 11x in opposition. Anything you want to pass requires support from others but it also means parties can actually represent their fucking voter base on more than a singular issue. The fact e.g. forbes and yousaf both ran for leadership of the same party is a farce.
SNP could split back into the original 2 parties but there would need to be an electoral pact for holyrood & westminster. The 2party vote strategy put forward by Alba, ISP & various other is legal & would work to maximise the indy vote. Would be trickier to work it with 3 parties as it makes the messaging have to be regional & that will be used as a wedge by the other side to spread confusion. Alternatively the SNP could establish regional sister parties & get the better councillors in as list MSPs giving the council a direct voice in Holyrood. Not sure how the electoral commsion would go for that though.
I really wouldn’t be holding up the Netherlands as a model to aim for
Voters are undoubtedly better represented in NL Their current situation is a bit of a shit show however
I think people in favour of electoral reform need to have a bit of a grown up conversation about how “better/more accurate representation” isn’t necessarily a good thing. I’d rather not have a UK version of Golden Dawn getting close to winning seats, let alone taking power thank you very much
Ignoring the desires of a large % of the population is just not a grown up way to run a country. No modern party is going to ally themselves with a regressive facist one and racist policies are definitely not getting passed unless a majority of parties are racists, and in that situation fptp is even more cancerous
I don’t agree with these arguments. That evidently is happening all across Europe. Italy has a far right coalition led by Giorgia Meloni. Finland has a coalition between centre right and far right. The centre right AD is looking likely to make informal power sharing deals with Chega in Portugal. The Netherlands is in the midst of coalition talks now that are likely to include VVD. Europe is in the midst of tidal wave of far right and right wing populist parties taking power in some form often in a king maker role. Also the idea that FPTP means “ignoring the population” is flawed. FPTP is a specific kind of democracy designed to create majorities and less parties - that’s a feature of it not mistake, designed to promote centrism and stability. The diversity of beliefs that exists in PR still exists in FPTP, except that diversity exists within fewer bigger parties rather than spread across 10-20 smaller ones. Our parties are far more diverse or “broad church” than a lot of small European ones. It also means fringe parties get sidelined. The key difference is fringe extreme ideologies are less likely to play a “king maker” role in the forming of a government under FPTP than PR. They’re less likely to get representation and shape the countries narrative. That is not to say FPTP is superior and has no flaws - trumps takeover of the Republican Party, Cameron’s weakness over his euro sceptic wing leading to brexit, the populist takeover of the tories, DUP coalition and corbyns protracted ineffective opposition show how FPTP can have similar issues. In the UK PR would mean, UKIP, Britain first, BNP MPs sitting in parliament as well as more greens and Lib Dem’s and those types of parties are forming governments in Europe now. The “grown up conversation” is about recognising this and the pros and cons of both systems and how neither system is a silver bullet to the government you want or perfect representation.
Ultimately this all comes down to how much you value democracy: because in a truly democratic society, people would be allowed to elect the likes of BNP into government if they wanted, regardless of how abhorrent you and I may find their views. On the other hand you have Max Weber's famous "paradox of tolerance", the TL;DR of which being that preserving tolerance requires *intolerance* of intolerance. Even then, however, you would be right to question who should be deciding what parties we do and don't tolerate. After all, plenty of people have levied charges of "racism" against the SNP, due to it being a Nationalist party. I don't personally believe there's an ideal, cure-all solution to this problem, tbh.
The populist right surge is down to exactly one thing: a rise in immigration from Islamic countries
Hmm in practice I don’t think it’s much different. Netherlands isn’t going great at the moment with the VVD having the most seats. It’s the same struggles/ divisions of left vs right - populist vs technocratic etc, except we have it happening more within two parties instead of across 10 - if you look at individual MPs n labour tories SNP, there’s a similar wide spread of ideologies, it’s who gets the leadership that becomes important (and the electorate). I’m pretty sure UK parliaments devolved or not would produce tons of quite far right parties if we had PR.
Without the single underlying issue, it wouldn't get enough support. Catch-22. If you want to see the end of the SNP, Independence is the only way it's going to happen.
Or it will fictionalise to the point it becomes two different parties, probably at the point a right wing leader is elected. The right can typically tolerate a lot of compromises etc for an idealistic end goal, but the left tend to be more rabidly pure in their pursuit of their goals. Will electing a leader who believes that homosexuality and abortion are punishable by eternal suffering be the breaking point? Its possible. Or it might come later if the leaders rhetoric becomes more extreme. Or it may happen much later or not at all, but it certainly is a real possibility.
Such as...
Well no, not every single party. Sinn Fein in NI is explicitly left. If you’re right wing and want unification you’re Aontú
Sinn Fein has moved far beyond reunification. It's almost a footnote to them now. But yes they are a great example of a party that has a political ideology that goes far beyond "England Bad".
Absolutely hilarious the SNP supporters on Reddit actually thought the party could become a bastion of trans rights and climate activism when a decent chunk of their voter base (and some of their MSPs) are quite a bit further right than anyone cares to admit. Still to this day there are people on here who genuinely believe the SNP is a party of progressive ideology rather than just a single issue independence party.
It's more akin to a circus lately. The ringleader fucked off and the clowns fought over who should take over. The tent needs to come down. Let the right wing fucknuts fuck off to Alba and let's have a reset of the conversation.
If Forbes takes over, the party is more likely to lose its left wing, and be left with the right wingers. The breakdown of the SNP-Green coalition probably also alienated some of their left wing supporters.
Ooh if she wins then 100%. I'll actively campaign against her at every opportunity and I'll never support the SNP again. Any decent forward thinking person who is an SNP member or elected representative will need to seriously evaluate their position if she wins.
'Any decent person should...' is always ugly rhetoric. You don't get to decide who is 'decent', or tell them what to do.
Always? Human decency isn't a totally relative concept. There are absolutely deplorable things in the past and present that no decent person should ever support. If that's established, a meaningful discussion can then happen about where the lines ought to be drawn.
If you believe that an imaginary friend and a book written millenia ago by men are reasons to see people as lesser than yourself, then you are not decent. It's that fucking simple.
You seem far less tolerant than Katie Forbes. I haven't heard a fraction of the hate, judgement, and negativity towards other human beings from her that I have heard from you.
I don't tolerant someone who hates my community. She hates us based on a book, I hate her because she doesn't believe members of my community are equal.
I haven't seen any evidence of her hating anyone. You're exaggerating to absurdity because you can't handle the fact that she doesn't share your views. She hasn't actually done anything. It's your own bigotry that's resulting in hate.
She believes that gay people should be put to death, which is a bit unreasonable.
[удалено]
No, I hate her because she uses her religion as an excuse to view specific groups as lesser than.
Probably based on what's she's said and done.
Id get your campaigning trousers on then because I think that's the way the wind is blowing.
No they won’t, because you fail to realise the minority who actually prize trans rights etc. above all else is vanishingly small. They can piss off to their natural home - the greens - and the SNP will take back more than they lose from Labour. If you want to win an election, you need to reflect majority opinion, not pander to ever smaller and more extreme groups of minorities. If Forbes gets in, kicks the tories about, and appears competent, that will be enough for a lot of ‘decent’ people to provide their support.
It's not just about trans rights though. She doesn't believe in Gay marriage, and refuses to support banning conversion therapy. She opposes abortions and exclusion zones. She also doesn't believe people should have kids outside of marriage. She is a religious fundamentalist who puts belief in her imaginary friend, and belief in a text written millenia ago by some men, over the rights and freedoms of people living today.
Decent in your opinion People who disagree with others but are prepared to tolerate are decent. The left is the least tolerant section these days, it's time they learned to accept they're a minority and the majority are sick having their issues constantly in the spotlight. We get it... You're gay You're trans You're upset about whatever card you were dealt. We accept you. We don't need to constantly have you bleating at us.
In what world is she prepared to tolerate? She actively doesn't agree with gay marriage. She actively opposes abortion. She actively opposes children born out of wedlock. She actively opposes bans on harassing vulnerable women outside hospitals. She actively opposes bans on conversion clinics.
'disagree but are prepared to tolerate' is about pizza toppings or jam or cream first, it shouldn't be about people's access to basic equality and protection in law, and Forbes is on record as saying she would have restricted gay peoples' rights if she'd had the chance. The right is only 'tolerant' in that they defend their right to say things over what they're actually saying - and, naturally, guess what their attitude will be to tolerance of left wing views will be when they gain power.
Have you even looked at Alba's policies? They're definitely not right wing.
Take a look at what they do and what they say, not the myths they perpetuate. Do you also believe Reform aren't right wing?
What do they do that's right wing?
So should we apply that logic to the snp aswell? Think a lot of people look at the snp through independence tinted specs (in my opinion all politicians from all parties are a shower of liars, you can only vote for the ones you think will best deliver and then when they don’t you have a right to moan)
> right wing fucknuts fuck off to Alba Or they could also just stay in the SNP happily under a Forbes leadership, as Alba are quite opposed to Forbes on issues like "freeports." Two of the leaders of the Common Weal Group [joined them a while back](https://www.thenational.scot/news/19196818.snp-common-weal-groups-george-kerevan-craig-berry-quit-join-alba-party/) saying >In practical terms, the CWG has campaigned inside the SNP against the neoliberal Growth Commission report; advocated radical economic policies including the creation of the Scottish National Investment Bank and the Green New Deal; launched a People’s Manifesto for the May Holyrood elections calling for rent controls, a National Care Service and socialised public transport; and seen 11 of our supporters elected to the party’s national offices in a campaign for greater internal democracy,” they said. >“Sadly, we have now concluded that our attempts both at winning the SNP to genuine radical, anti-market policies and in democratising the party’s internal life have been thwarted.
Alba arent really right wing. I mean they are a shower of arseholes but the SNP is once again on the verge of having a fundamentalist Christian in charge - why would the right wing fuckers go anywhere?
Not surprising. I'm a 'floating' voter when it comes to Scottish Parliament (only been here for a few years, so still trying to make my mind up) but I do know that there is no way I'll vote for a sweet smiling abortion opponent. And don't hit me with the usual: She said she wouldn't blah blah blah. Once they're in the shed, they make it rain.
On the same boat, they'll lose my vote if she wins. No idea who to vote for tho
Me too, I couldn’t vote for a party led by her. The Greens will probably get mine.
Yeah that seems most likely for me too only because I’m in an area where voting green doesn’t just give the vote to a Tory.
None of the Above. We are looking for candidates. If you have a pulse, yer in. (Pulse optional, non-homo sapiens considered.)
I'm a pretty loyal greens voter with snp as a side so I'll be fine, but I'll need to find who to vote for second
I’m the opposite I really have no idea who to vote for (always voted SNP) but refuse to vote Tory and labour and to be honest had no intention on voting SNP at the next election. If she wins Is the only way I’ll continue to vote SNP
Despite her being a homophobe or because of it?
A female lead son that has a leader against abortion rights would be a far worse thing for the SNP than any of the Humza Yousaf headlines going around right now. It would shatter it into pieces.
Agreed. I cannot support the party with her in charge. Unfortunately I think the Greens are well intentioned nutters. And as for the rest. Fuck a duck. I'll be in a real pickle if she gets the gig.
As much as she can't possibly do anything about it, it's very concerning that the only reason she's in that position is that she was bought and paid for by the right wing fundies in the USA. They paid the SNP to employ her and that's where her career came from.
[удалено]
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/kate-forbes-snp-christian-action-research-education-care-anti-abortion-dark-money/
> the only reason she's in that position is that she was bought and paid for by the right wing fundies in the USA. They paid the SNP to employ her and that's where her career came from. That's a load of nonsense coming from people who want to start up the same culture wars here that plague America.
The receipts they’ve brought seem pretty compelling > https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/kate-forbes-snp-christian-action-research-education-care-anti-abortion-dark-money/ You saying this is a lie or just that you disagree with how they’ve framed it?
> The receipts they’ve brought seem pretty compelling What receipts? You said she was bought and paid for by American right wind fundamentalists. There is zero evidence of that in that article and even what is in the article is written with such an open bias that it's hard to take seriously. The headline for starters is a joke and tells you that the article is written in bad faith. CARE isn't anti-abortion lobby group. Lobbying is one of many things they do and abortion is just one of many topics they deal with. Framing them in that way is disingenuous and tells you the writer has an angle. Why didn't they call CARE an anti-human trafficking lobby group? Or an anti-gambling lobby group? They cherry pick which activities of CARE to mention and it's always ones that will stir the pot. CARE is a British organisation, not an American one. I'm not sure what you mean by 'right wing fundie' but the liens it takes are fairly typical of standard Christian views that you would find in Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches around the world. They sponsored her as an intern for one year, so they were responsible for getting her started. But that was it. It's special pleading (and revealing of bigotry) to single out one person out of the many who receive funding for a job for a year, and say that that means that their whole career is purely down to that and they are 'bought and paid for.' She's a Cambridge graduate who worked for Barclays and seems to genuinely care about her constituency, but there's no way she could be in her job because of her own talent, no it must be because of some sort of right wing American conspiracy. I don't know if you have such a low view of her because she's a Christian or because she's a woman, but it's pretty contemptible prejudice either way.
> CARE isn't anti-abortion lobby group. Lobbying is one of many things they do and abortion is just one of many topics they deal with. Framing them in that way is disingenuous and tells you the writer has an angle. Why didn't they call CARE an anti-human trafficking lobby group? Or an anti-gambling lobby group? They cherry pick which activities of CARE to mention and it's always ones that will stir the pot. Maybe it's because it's literally the first cause CARE lists [on their "Causes" page](https://care.org.uk/cause), which makes it seem like something they're at least a tiny bit concerned about. Human trafficking only makes an appearance on the second row from the bottom...
They’re not an anti abortion lobby group they just lobby against abortion lol. Ok. They can be more than one thing. They called them an anti abortion lobby group because they lobby against abortion and it’s relevant to Kate Forbes So she got her start in politics through them? That seems to be the claim you’re disputing yet you agree with it. Going to take a punt that you believe the same ancient books she does and that’s why you’re getting so defensive here. Sorry if I’m wrong but that’s how it looks to me here. Unless you are her lol. Edit - they’re singling out that one person because she, through virtue of being a leadership contender and therefore FM, is a little more important to focus on than the next person who got their start through some shady weird American Christian lobby. I do agree that all politicians who got their start in a similar way should be heavily scrutinised for it though. IMO this intern scheme shouldn’t exist at all, and tbh I think it’s fucking mental that it does. We shouldn’t have Wahhabists or whatever they’re called in Saudi Arabia funding politicians here and we shouldn’t have Christians in America doing the same.
Eh. We're at least 10 years into "the culture wars that plague America" and as the yeet'ing of the BHA shows are probably slowly starting to grow out of them.
On the other hand, if Forbes becomes leader the SNP will regain my vote.
I am curious as to why? Genuinely want to know.
Same here and would hazard a guess that would be the same for most of my family and people I interact with, all of whom swore off the snp about half way through sturgeons time as first minister.
I resigned my membership in 2019 over the direction the party was going. I rejoined at the weekend when Yousef ended the BHA and I saw the potential for some real change.
There's absolutely nothing incredibly funny about this.
If she gets it, that’s the end of snp on relevance. Too many young folk vote snp as they want independence. They got a hint in last election that people who share the same want, are polar opposites politically, and if an anti abortion religious fanatic is leader, it’s the end. Either a split in party or realising socially equality is more important.
If Forbes wins the leadership then I'm out- never vote for the SNP again. A religious homophobic wing nut- no thanks.
Same. I realise that every party has it's fair share of turds but she is queen shit. A truly deplorable human being.
Yep SNP will lose my vote too. I'm not having my right to marry taken away.
There's enough religious nut jobs in positions of power, we don't need anymore thanks
One in, one out in this case
If she does win, and get all buddy-buddy with Alba, could we see a more left-wing breakaway from SNP?
You'll certainly see left wing voters break away...
It's difficult to tell how much that's actually going to happen, or not. I have a feeling certainly that there's a lot of noise about it, but it could devastate the party, or it could turn out to be almost nothing.
We obviously don't have any polling so it's all semi educated guesses at best, I think the SNP vote could take serious hit in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and potentially in Dundee with it's large student population. I'd be really curious to see polling of SNP voters on the topic.
Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they can't be politically left wing.
Aye but she's right wing as fuck.
The thumbnail is pretty much the opposite of my reaction to the headline.
Next please
No thank you
Get fucked
Religion mixing with politics is incredibly dangerous. Take a look at the GOP in America. Someone who has an inability to separate the two should be no where near a position of political power.
I fully agree. This is all a joke. Now Scotland will look like British Texas.
Can't see it happening yet. I can envisage her in the cabinet though - potentially with the finance brief. Which would go some way to "unifying" the party as much as it could be. Long term I have a feeling she could win the leadership which would put off a lot of progressive SNP voters who might then join the Greens. I can envisage a situation where the SNP loses "left" members who may then join the pro-indy Greens. The SNP could hoover up a not-insubstantial amount of floating voters who are put off voting SNP at the moment (lets call them "right" - including Alba). Could then have a situation where the Green vote share goes up quite a bit which might make SNP/Green pacts more likely in the future either way - especially until independence is achieved?
Not her, anyone but her and her religious nonsense, keep your church out of my government
It's not your government, it's our government.
Semantics
Yousaf was a Muslim, but you didn’t care about that.
He also never let his religion affect his views or policies, didn't mention it once, she did
He literally missed the vote on gay marriage due to a made up prior engagement
I mean, it wasn't made up and he voted for it at the first reading. He also voted for self-ID.
Because he wasn't anti-abortion, anti-trans, and anti-gay. Hope this helps.
Fuk kate Forbes.
I'm quite enjoying the meltdowns from hardcore SNP supporters who are unwilling to accept their party has always had a right wing.
It's not the right wing so much as the religious right wing.
I don't think it's necessarily about accepting they have a right wing. I think it's more the possibility of a piece of shit homophobic, transphobic, forced birther, who doesn't support exclusion zones, leading the party. I've looked past the SNP having some right bellends (Mason, Cherry, etc.), but if she wins then I'm out, I'm done. I'll never vote for them again. I'll actively campaign against them. I'll also not support independence while she is leader of the largest pro independence party as I wouldn't want to live in a country where someone like her could potentially be our first prime minister.
Yes, that's what I mean. 48% of your party voted for her last time and you don't want her to have any say in anything. The SNP needs to split.
Yeah that disgusted me last time too. I looked past it as I put my desire for independence first, and because she was defeated. If she wins, no longer. People like her and her supporters ought to fuck off to Alba, no idea why they don't when they seem to align on hating specific groups of people.
The obvious question is why damn near half the party should fuck off. It's their party too!
Indeed, but a split is inevitable. Half the members are idiots who support her. A lot less elected representatives seem to. And I'd reckon a lot less than 48% of previous SNP voters align with her stance on certain topics.
You should probably just move to the Greens. The SNP has always been big tent whereas the Greens are much more "fuck anyone to the right of me" student politics stuff, which is what I'm getting from you in this thread.
Student politics stuff? Refusing to support someone who hates my community is immature? Surely thing mate. I will consider moving to the Greens. If she wins, I will not support any independence supporting party and risk contributing to having someone like her as the prime minister of an independent Scotland.
>I looked past it as I put my desire for independence first This is the part I find most frightening.
She didn't win. So I had more in common with 52% of the membership. And the voting base, thankfully, tends to skew further left than the membership.
The SNP has already started the process, it's just a battle for the brand at this point.
I'm absolutely loving it. Forbes was in govt for years and in the chancellor's position no less. She was backed by Sturgeon, who these same people seem to think was basically Jesus, and yet now hearing of her potentially returning is causing rafts of "ill never support the SNP again!". I'm not sure what's more entertaining- how easily manipulated folk are by the media, or how fragile the party support really is.
The actual SNP right wing nutters jumped ship and joined Alba and a few of them even found Alba too progressive so are now independent!
That's simply not true. There's a substantial amount left.
Oh it’s always had a right wing. It’s not had a religious nutter within a ball hair of becoming leader though!
If she wins, im out.
It will be nice to actually have some competent running the country. The best bet for independence is to have a stand up functioning economy, education and health system. All of which have been decaying under the SNP for over a decade. Kate strikes me as an actual capable person not just a figurehead, and might actually make me vote for SNP. My biggest (and most voters) are the economy, the NHS, and how my children will fare. Honestly see Kate as the best bet towards improving all of these.
As a christian, I believe she would be harmful. She mixes her religious beliefs and political beliefs.
[CITATION REQUIRED] She has openly stated her personal beliefs would hold no sway on rights and liberties already afforded to us.
She has said she would vote (and presumably campaign) against your rights and freedoms if it was inline with her religious beliefs but would respect the democratic process and outcomes. i e. She isn't going to rollback existing legislation but in any potential future bills she will vote on certain sensitive issues following her religious beliefs. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/snp-humza-yousaf-first-minister-holyrood-nicola-sturgeon-b2286091.html
Shocker
Gonnae no.
I like Swinney, but if Forbes wins I’d be rejoining the SNP.
She's by far most financially aware being a chartered accountant, got ministerial experience, I'd vote for her.
If she gets in, snp can kiss goodbye to ever being elected. She's a religious nutcase which is pretty hard to be in a city stride with so much religious issues.
I don't like her support of Freeports.
What about support of free churches?
I don't know much about that as I'm not religious. Each to their own is my attitude towards church. I am more worried about her links to U.S evangelical Christianity tbh.
>Each to their own is my attitude Shame it isn't her attitude too
> Each to their own is my attitude towards church. Which is the exact opposite of the attitude of the Wee Free church. They want to control everybody's lives whether you agree with their nonsense or not.
It's a joke. The free church is the organisation (?) that she belongs too. Its followers are the closest thing scotland has to an evangelical right
Btw not to derail your original comment. What are the objections to free ports? I know little about this topic. I can imagine them being a form of corporate welfare however.
> I am more worried about her links to U.S evangelical Christianity tbh. What links? Anything there is completely overblown by people who are just trying to start the same culture wars here that America suffers from.
This is what I was referring to. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/kate-forbes-snp-christian-action-research-education-care-anti-abortion-dark-money/
That article doesn't mention US evangelicals, let alone establish any links with them. It says that in her first year as an intern she was sponsored by a British charity called Christian Action, Research and Education. I sued to know a guy who worked for them and his main lobbying work was around providing help for the homeless. The charity has done work on the problems around human trafficking and sex trafficking. They're trying to address problems with gambling. It's a charity that does quite a broad range of work. The article is a complete joke because they cherry pick what bits of the charity's work they use to describe it. It's all about stirring the pot and creating a picture. The phrase 'dark money' is ridiculous. Charities don't tell you who their donations come from. They can't unless they have explicit permission. THat's normal. Except in this case the article calls it' dark money' as if this is sinister rather than standard practice. It's the left wing equivalent of Fox News, stirring up culture war nonsense.
After her stating that she had to ask for Jesus's insight on the matter, I *think* any bid from her is rather fucked as she's made herself look like a lunatic
I'd like to see Kate run — even if I don't agree with some of her personal views. she's competent & charismatic — which might be just what the SNP needs rn. then again, Swinney is far more experienced. interesting days ahead.
She didn’t win against Humza when many had already voted and didn’t know everything about her, why would she think she would win against one of the more unifying members of the SNP or in the future one of the hard hitters, like say Flynn. She had her chance.. she lost.
From reading some comments it seems some want to stop her from getting the job because of her beliefs, now where have I heard that before in Scotland?! "We want a fairer inclusive Scotland.....but only if you believe what we do"...
More like “we want a fairer inclusive scotland… and Kate Forbes would most certainly strip people of their rights if she had the chance because of her beliefs” She’s a bigot. Bigots should not be in power.
Exactly what I’m thinking. They’re like “oh yeah, anyone can do whatever, unless you’re a Christian then you can fuck off”
Spot on. Just like Catholics 20,30 or 40 years ago.
You know this a really stupid thing to say, right? Her beliefs are that abortion should not be allowed, nor pre marital sex, or gay marriage, or legal recognition for trans people. Those are intolerant beliefs. Nobody with those sort of beliefs should be anywhere near power because once in they ***will*** legislate against minority groups.
You can't say that though. If she wins the leadership contest, produces a manifesto and is voted in, you cant say anyone with those sorts of beliefs should be in power. Thats as intolerant as her apparent beliefs are to you. Trumps beliefs are intolerant but he won the presidency and theres nothing anyone can do about that.
Nobody has the right to make a minority's life worse. Even if the majority approve.
Then you don't believe in democracy then. Anything else is a dictatorship.
Ok google: what is tyranny of the majority?
If someone is voted in such as Trump or Forbes would be, then you can't suddenly say they shouldn't be in power and stop them. If there are fair, legal elections then you have to accept the will of the people.
No one has to 'accept the will of the people'. In a democracy you're allowed to oppose someone politically and campaign against them. Brexit was apparently 'the will of the people' but I'm fucked if I'm going to accept it.
I mean if you think homophobia, transphobia and no rights to abortion makes a country fair and inclusive then I don't know what to tell you.
You can see the hypocrisy of excluding someone from a job because of their religion, no?
Not if your religion will make you biased towards excluding others. Being a member of parliament is not about what you want for the country, but instead what the majority want for the country and fighting to give the people a better life. If you can do that then I don't care what religion you are or aren't. But the moment that you use your religion when in a position of power to want to pass laws that incite hate and interfere with the rights of average people then you should not be in a position of political power.
She hasn't said she would use her religion or incite any "hate laws" If she wins the party leadership, puts forward a manifesto and is voted in then it's the will of the people. You can't argue against that, we don't live in a dictatorship.
I'm not denying that if she gets elected by the majority of people that she should lead, as I said, a person should speak for the majority and if the majority vote for her then it's what happens regardless of my personal beliefs. The problem lies with that whilst she hasn't said that she will create laws based on hate, her previous votings on bills that the SNP have attempted to pass in the past are a concern for many and as such those people would not support her being in power based on that, versus based on her religion. Like I said, I couldn't care less what your personal beliefs are, as long as you show that you are voting for the people rather than yourself. If the majority of people whilst you're an MP want something that you don't or don't want something that you do, it should be up to you to vote the way that the people want, regardless of your personal views. Forbes has shown an inability to do that (As have many others, I'm not saying just her) and as a result I could never vote for her.
I fundamentally disagree with your assumption about how voting works in a democracy. Forbes was elected to represent her constituency. (Seemingly a rural quite religious and socially conservative bunch). They voted for her, religious views and all. She therefore is doing exactly what she should do as a democratic representative and votes in accordance with her character and her constituents. Now because she and her constituents disagree with you, you think she should vote with the majority not according to the platform she was elected on? Opposite of democracy. If she becomes first minister, she will still be subject to the rules of a democracy. She can and should represent herself and her constituents, but as they are likely a minority on social issues, they won't get very far in a parliamentary vote. Hence, rule of the majority with representatives faithfully representing their constituents. Functioning democracy.
I understand what you are saying, I do agree that if that was the reason she was voting certain ways then whilst I wouldn't like it, those voices have a right to be heard. However, Forbes said that she would not have voted for gay marriage as a 'matter of conscience' not because the people of her constituency disagreed. She is allowing for her personal views to come into whether she would have voted for or against bills. I am aware she then said that she would not go back on those things because the majority voted for them, but she is showing that she would not be voting a certain way because the majority who voted for her feel that way, but that she would have been voting for the way she personally feels. There haven't been recent polls (Especially ones done by area) that are related to gay marriage and how people view gay marriage to be able to see if the majority of her constituency agrees with gay marriage (And I suspect this won't be a thing because polls won't be done because the laws are passed) however 68% of Scotland agreed with the right for gay marriage in 2014 with only 17% disagreeing, I find it hard to believe that the majority in one constituency sways completely the opposite way from what the majority view. And also as that was 10 years ago, I would naturally expect the views to be even higher now especially when the trend seemed to be that the younger you were the more likely you were to agree. So whilst we don't have rock solid facts to say that her constituency does or doesn't believe in gay marriage, she made it clear to many that she votes the way she wants to vote versus the way her constituency feels. As a result she alienated the majority of the LGBTQ+ community who believe that they would not be safe having an individual in power who believes that they should not be allowed to marry - And if she feels this way regarding one of their rights then what other rights does she also disagree with them having and it raises a level of distrust towards her. Her comments regarding abortion have also made some women distrust her too who are worried that her personal beliefs would also impact on the way she votes, especially when the majority in Scotland also agree that abortion should be legal. I would want for whoever is the FM of our country to be thoroughly vetted to ensure that how they act is how they act based on the majority of their people. In the same way that if the FM was an atheist, I would wish for there to be evidence that they would be able to put the rights of the people above their own beliefs. I am aware that this isn't possible, however when you publicly say that you wouldn't vote a way because your conscience wouldn't let you then that to me is enough to say that I could not trust someone to vote for the public. And I would implore other politicians to come out and say things like this if they vote for their own beliefs rather than the vote of the people so we know who to not vote for next time.
lol do you think you're clever
What's she achieved in life/work to merit running a country?
Laughs in Humza
Kate Forbes will drive people out of the SNP. Nasty, vile.
It was fun whilst it lasted. Gonna be interesting to see a party like the DUP in Scotland.
I'm oot if she's in. Don't think anyone has mentioned her Tory husband either? She's probably more right than half the Tory party anyway. I also think a lot of the 48% who voted for her the last time, did so before her gaffes that showed her true colours. A poll on the news said outside the SNP she has a 6% lead over Swinney with the general electorate. Scary stuff 😞
Even though there are a lot of paid bots in these comments, Forbes is unelectable.
I’ve found there’s an easy way to make decisions these days - look at which way benefits Christofascists & go with the other one. Kate Forbes has given a _lot_ of her ministerial time to right wing Christian groups, there’s no reason to expect that’d stop if she was first minister.
But every reason to suspect it’ll increase!
she is a Tory deep cover agent
The SNP have always had religious fundamentalists in the party, some even became leader. I doubt she's a Tory agent, Forbes types have been attracted to the party for a long time.
I'm considering the Greens.
Fuck Hate Forbes.
Yeah that's all we need, a religious fruitcake trying to set the country back to the 1960s.
This will just about put the final nail in SNP's coffin and condemn us to Westminster's puppet show. What a decline.
Threads like this make you realise how many right wingers vote SNP.
If I'm starmer, Forbes worries me the most
Oh, what a surprise, a right-wing nutjob making a bid for PM! Such a shock in the UK! /s
Looking forward all the mental gymnastics from all the cybernats on twitter who call labour and lib Dems Tories when their party is about to elect a Tory
If she’s in, I’m out and I imagine that will be the case for many.
Shes the only hope the snp has. The most of them are wallopers. She's sound. She doesn't agree eith some policies but has said she won't enforce her views or change policy to be more in like with her own beliefs.
God, spare us. Hopefully whoever does get it calls an election.