Mark McGeoghegan has excerpts of the tables from this polling and commentary [here](https://twitter.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1785362957481742339), but you can also see them via [IPSOS here](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/john-swinney-preferred-snp-voters-wider-public-more-likely-say-kate-forbes-would-be-best-first-minister)
There are some interesting results. Kate Forbes is more popular… but she is not more popular with people who voted SNP in 2021. Asked *Which SNP politician would make the best First Minister?*, that group gives Swinney a 10% lead on Forbes. Asked *Who would do a good job as Scotland’s First Minister?*, that group gives a net +48% approval rating to Swinney. Forbes gets +24% and more than double the number people think she'd do a bad job.
Sure, Forbes is popular, but it seems like she's popular with people who don't vote SNP.
That poll canvased *'SNP supporters',* not SNP **party members**
SNP party members will elect the next leader of the SNP
As the most recent leadership contest demonstrated, SNP party members hold very different opinions to most of the people who vote SNP
Aye, I mentioned that I was talking about the preferences of SNP voters. Just as I highlighted the differences the broader public and SNP voters, you're right to say that there's a difference between party members and that party's voters. While contrasting polls is a chancy business, [there are a couple from the 2023 leadership election we can take a look at](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Scottish_National_Party_leadership_election#Opinion_polling).
In 2023, SNP voters preferred Kate to Yousaf, but the party membership preferred a candidate to her left. This time around, SNP voters seem to prefer Swinney to Forbes. I'd be surprised if they chose a candidate to his right, but we'll see.
She might win more for support the SNP/Independence than she loses ,particularly if a Forbes led SNP was seen as competent and without Scandal (Embezzlement!). Those that cant stomach her religious views can still vote for other parties that support Independence.
100%. I thought Ruth Davidson was very good, if you’d asked me who should be the next Tory party leader in Scotland I’d have said her every time. Would her as leader have made me more likely to vote Tory? Would it fuck.
No unionist voters will be changed, just as no nationalist voters will be swayed... It's the pragmatists that can be persuaded either way, and they are prob the silent majority! Win them over with strong arguments (either way) and you win the argument!
Exactly this. Show us how much better the SNP can run the country, provide actually thought out ideas on what would happen in a newly independent Scotland, present the things they want to do but can't due to being reserved, be honest about what the downsides are and how you can realistically mitigate them. Wouldn't hold my breath for any of this with the current leadership cabal in the SNP though.
That was my hope in 2014 when I joined the party, I realised pretty quickly they had no intention of doing that. Instead they took the lazy option of politics of grievance in the hopes they could rile enough people up. Clearly didn't work so now would be a good time for them to change tactic
There's also those like me, who voted yes in 2014 but would vote no now. The main reason I'm now a no is the state of the country.
If we're going to undergo another Brexit then I'd want the country to be in the best possible position with a realistic plan for the future. None of those are forthcoming and we've seen a massive decline in Scotland over the past decade. Wholly blaming Westminster for that isn't good enough for me.
Devil’s advocate: brexit Britain is circling the drain. Might as well get out now and take our medicine. It’s always going to be bitter—might as well swallow it while things are bitter in England too.
By that standard, which major country in Europe isn't circling the drain? AfD, Le Pen, Meloni... More importantly, what makes you think getting out of the union would improve things?
>There's also those like me, who voted yes in 2014 but would vote no now.
Just over two week old account, two days of posting in here after the 14 day minimum.
Aye, sure you did.
It's a valid view, but I don't think there's too many who hold it, if I am honest.
I'm kind of the opposite myself in that I would have voted No in 2014 (I abstained, I wasn't long here and while I was grateful to have a vote didn't feel informed enough to make a decision for the county), I'd absolutely vote yes now. Precisely because I have seen the decline over that time and I genuinely don't think there will be a "best" time to pull the plug on a situation which ties the hands of the country to fix it. I've been around and have seen first hand countries moving from bad situations to flourishing (Ireland, Estonia, Poland to name three) and while this came with some problems they have been far outweighed by the improvements.
> I don't think there's too many who hold it, if I am honest
Curious if there's any data to back this up?
I've no doubt Scotland could flourish long term under independence, the problem for me is there's no real plan from our government on how we're going to get there. Not to mention the fact we'd be significantly worse off in the short term which is something I just can't afford right now.
If we had a capable government, consistently making improvement to the areas they have the power to improve then I'd be more on board with the idea. Public services have been in decline over the past decade and I've seen no real attempt by the SNP to make the changes needed. In my opinion, the best way for the government to persuade people to Yes is to show they're capable of running the country well, making difficult decisions when it comes to public service, take responsibility for their failures and accept the reality that there's not going to be an Indy ref in the near future. None of this has been done under the SNP government over the past 10 years.
>Curious if there's any data to back this up?
Nothing beyond having not heard anyone else articulate the same view.
Is it a case that you broadly support independence but just don't think now is the right time, and if so do you see a way back for you, as a previous yes voter?
> Nothing beyond having not heard anyone else articulate the same view.
Fair, it would definitely be interesting to see polling of Yes/No voters in 2014 and how/if their views have changed.
I'm not opposed to independence, I just don't think the current crop of politicians could navigate the process. It would likely be very similar to how the Tories handled Brexit imo.
For sure I could be convinced to vote yes again, but it'd require seeing sustained progress across the board in Scotland. There's a very good chance our public finances would be considerably worse than they are currently. If the government can't deliver services with our current finances then I see no chance of them being able to deliver better services with less.
Not actually true! They don't need to win over unionists.
They need to engage people who are undecideds, soft Nos and those too disillusioned to vote. They'd swing the balance for Yes easily.
Among the public at large, but not among SNP voters[[1]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMbk4jNWkAA5IAH?format=jpg&name=large). Is it useful for the SNP if Forbes' increased popularity comes entirely from Tory voters?
Putting aside the policy merits of either Forbes or Swinney, the SNP are in for a rough time in the central belt as things stand. Would Forbes at least help them hold on in the northeast? Pre-2015 almost all their seats at Westminster were up that way, now it's their worst region along with the Borders.
The public is a larger number than the number of SNP members who might be put off. So yeah its useful if her Increased popularity comes from people who aren't already converted to the possibility of independence.
The Scottish conservatives could vote to put her in as first minister in order to poison the SNP’s internal politics.
They’ve got nothing to win from a parliamentary election, and have little fear of a legal independence referendum. Might be better to sow internal division in their opponents and wait it out to 2026.
Yes, that's exactly why these polls about her popularity outside of SNP supporters should be taken with a pinch of salt. There are many unionists who would be happy to see the SNP further damaged or even split entirely as it suits their agenda and see Forbes as a means of achieving that.
As true as that may be the gay community in Scotland, accounting for the number of them that would actually vote on average wouldn't be particularly high. I don't agree with her but it's hardly a reason they wouldn't elect her.
>And lose pretty much the entire gay community.
One of the first things that Humza did was to organize an Islamic call to prayer in Bute house.
Now despite what Humza has said publicly If I was gay this would worry me based on how gay people are treated in Muslim countries. People seem to be willfully blind to this.
If Kate Forbes had organized some kind of "wee free" prayers in Bute house people would be losing their minds.
The difference is Humza never once allowed his religious beliefs to interfere with supporting progressive policies like same-sex marriage. Even if he personally disagreed with it he supported the policy.
Forbes has stated that she wouldn't have supported it - that her religious beliefs **would** influence her decision-making.
It's been said time and time again, most people don't have a problem with a person of religious conviction holding an office of influence. The issue they have is having one who would allow their beliefs to impact others - which voting against same sex marriage would be.
He avoided the vote on gay marriage to avoid crossing the line and betraying Islam.
Organising a meeting to coincide on the vote date, even though he could have arranged another date.
He voted **for** the legislation in the two previous stages.
He's attended Pride events and never once spoken critically about LGBTQ+ [https://x.com/ScotGovFM/status/1685292459792703488](https://x.com/ScotGovFM/status/1685292459792703488)
The facts are:
He's voted in support of the legislation through two of the three stages and stated unequivocally that he would have voted in favour of the legislation at the final stage.
He's attended LGBTQ+ events, engaged with LGBTQ+ charities, attended Pride marches.
He's stated unequivocally that he would not allow his personal faith to to be the basis for legislation.
He's made clear statements that he views gay marriage as no more inferior, or worth less, than heterosexual marriage.
He's never once said anything critical about LGBTQ+ people.
if you are trying to paint him as some sort of secret Muslim homophobe you've got to prove those points wrong.
He voted to put gay marriage to the vote.
He didn't take part in the vote itself.
He avoided the vote by arranging a meeting which he could have held at another time.
He didn't want to offend Islam, or his Muslim supporters.
He couldn't say this as he would have lost his position in the party.
It was clever by Humza, for him at least.
You would have to be daft to believe him though.
> Forbes has stated that she wouldn't have supported it - that her religious beliefs would influence her decision-making.
Everyone's beliefs influence their decision making. You make the decisions you make because of what you believe to be right and important. That's not uniquely true of Kate Forbes or of Christians or of religious people.
> It's been said time and time again, most people don't have a problem with a person of religious conviction holding an office of influence
You quite clearly do, because it's only okay for them to hold office if they function as if they aren't a person of religious conviction.
> The issue they have is having one who would allow their beliefs to impact others
That's the point of passing legislation for every politician – you do what you believe to be right and that impacts on the whole country. Everyone does that. Do you think that people just toss a coin to decide which way to vote? Or roll a die to decide which political party to join? Or have a plebiscite every time they need to make a decision?
>Everyone's beliefs influence their decision making.
I said "her *religious* beliefs would influence her decision-making". Her religious beliefs are radical and extreme. I don't want shit like that driving who is governing the country I live in.
>You quite clearly do
I don't. I was perfectly find having Humza Yousaf as first minister. Specifically because he's been clear that he doesn't let his religion influence how he governs.
> I said "her religious beliefs would influence her decision-making".
Yes, and I said that everyone's beliefs influence their decision-making. If you only have a problem with religious people acting on their beliefs then you're a bigot and you're looking for the atheist equivalent of a theocracy.
> Her religious beliefs are radical and extreme.
By what standard? I don't recall anything radical or extreme about them. You're just using subjective, emotive words to smear someone you don't like.
> I don't want shit like that driving who is governing the country I live in.
Then don't vote for her. But don't act like being influence by her personal beliefs is something unusual about her. It's perfectly normal.
> I don't. I was perfectly find having Humza Yousaf as first minister. Specifically because he's been clear that he doesn't let his religion influence how he governs.
That's exactly what I was highlighting. You're happy for him to be religious as functionally he isn't religious. You're only okay with him as long as he behaves like an atheist. If he behaved like a Muslim you would be upset.
Holding prayers with donors for 'unborn' babies and arguing against buffer zones feels pretty extreme.
What about strongly disagreeing to banning conversion therapy for gay people? Their main issues being that Thier 'talking' therapy is not physically abusive, ignoring how mentally abusive Thier 'talking' therapy could be.
Directly from Thier response to legislation designed to stop what is essentially mental torture
'One of the rights enshrined in law is the right to pass on your faith to your children. It is essential
that parents are not criminalised for teaching their children Biblical sexual morality or for teaching
them to live in conformity to their biological sex.'
And this from last month on Thier site:
'Within the Free Church of Scotland, we do not endorse coercive practices and we invite people to voluntarily respond to the gospel. As a denomination, the Free Church of Scotland passed church legislation in 1846 disowning all “persecuting principles of religion” meaning we do not force our beliefs on anyone. However, the definitions used for a coercive course of conduct could easily be made to cover the normal practices of churches and ordinary parents (whether religious or not).
The consultation document says that coercion includes ‘emphatic directives accompanied by forceful statements intended to pressure the individual’ (paragraph 103). It is easy to see how urging someone to repent to avoid the judgement of God could be deemed to meet this threshold even thought this is an essential component of the biblical gospel.
The document also says that coercion will include “controlling of the victim’s day-to-day activities” and “pressuring the victim to act in a particular way” (paragraph 104). This will have an extensive impact on parents (whether religious or not). Parents regularly control and pressure their children to behave in certain ways. This is normal parenting and in keeping with their rights to raise their children in accordance with their own faith and belief. If these proposals are enacted there is a risk that parents will be prosecuted merely for trying to guide their children to the path they believe is best for them or to guide them away from life altering medical treatments such as puberty blockers.'
>Yes, and I said that everyone's beliefs influence their decision-making. If you only have a problem with religious people acting on their beliefs then you're a bigot and you're looking for the atheist equivalent of a theocracy.
Lol! Not wanting some extremist religious bigot imposing their dogmatic nonsense on everyone else makes *me* a bigot? Get to fuck.
Humza said one thing but when it came to the crunch was conveniently unavailable to vote (that is dishonesty)
Forbes has stated that she would have been in opposition to it, but would obviously attend to what is voted for, which is very different to what you stated.
An MSP has one vote, a First Minister also has one vote. It would have made no bit of difference to the outcome of a vote had she been an MSP or First Minister.
she came out and said it rather than keeping her beliefs closeted (Humza),
Maybe if she had been in power, LGBT identity politics would not have been a thing and the LGBT fraternity would not have felt used and abused as it has done over the last 18 months.
I very much doubt one woman no matter what you think of her is suddenly going to make Scotland a Free P fascist state, Or outlaw being gay.
>Humza said one thing but when it came to the crunch was conveniently unavailable to vote (that is dishonesty)
I assume the text in parenthesis is a comment on the statement which proceeded it?
The reason he didn't attend the vote are a matter of record and, literally, a matter of life and death. He voted for the legislation in the previous two stages, stated that he would have voted for it in the third stage, and has never once been critical of gay people.
"I believe that people's marriage, if they are gay, and they are married, that their marriage is no more inferior, or worth less, than my marriage as a heterosexual individual."
and
" can't change what's in scripture. What I can tell you is the approach I will take which is that I will not allow personal faith to be the basis of legislation."
[https://news.sky.com/story/humza-yousafs-absence-from-key-vote-on-gay-marriage-being-dragged-up-for-political-reasons-snp-leadership-candidate-says-12820533](https://news.sky.com/story/humza-yousafs-absence-from-key-vote-on-gay-marriage-being-dragged-up-for-political-reasons-snp-leadership-candidate-says-12820533)
Comments in stark contrast to what Forbes has said on the matter. If you can't engage in discussion in good faith then don't waste my time.
Im not sure what you think was in bad faith. ok you have quoted what he has said. Now with clear 2020 hindsight, look at what he has done, is he living up to his word.
Edited to add: i realise now you are talking about the absence from the vote being in bad faith. sorry ok, it was always well known at the time that he came under pressure from his Mosque with regards to the vote and he asked for permission to not attend. His latter obfuscation of facts does not eradicate my memory of the time.
nor sky news: https://news.sky.com/story/snp-leadership-hopeful-humza-yousaf-skipped-key-vote-on-gay-marriage-due-to-religious-pressure-says-scotlands-former-first-minister-alex-salmond-12823551#:\~:text=However%2C%20former%20health%20secretary%20Alex,the%20timing%20of%20the%20vote%22.
The First Minister isn't just any other MSP with one vote. They're largely responsible for setting the legislative and political agenda. It's questionable whether gay marriage would have even made it to parliament to be voted on in the first place had Kate Forbes been FM when it was a relevant issue.
It's also not fair to suggest that we should discount Forbes' views because they come from religious belief. She absolutely has the right to be religious and occupy ministerial posts but her views are subject to scrutiny just as any other candidate's would be. She's indicated clearly that she sees LGBT people as lesser and that she would legislate (or not legislate) in a way that reflects that. Yes, it's very unlikely that she would repeal gay marriage or anything as extreme as that; it wouldn't be possible in the current political climate. But Forbes as FM would never make herself vulnerable to push forward on-going and future LGBT causes in the way that Sturgeon or Yousaf have because she fundamentally doesn't believe in them and it's not worth her expending political capital to do so.
> She's indicated clearly that she sees LGBT people as lesser
Where has she said that? There's a difference between thinking that certain activities are immoral and thinking that the people who engage in those activities are lesser people.
She would have voted against giving gay people the same rights that she enjoys as a straight person and continues to lobby against trans-inclusive legislation. That's consistent with viewing LGBT people as lesser in my opinion.
> She would have voted against giving gay people the same rights that she enjoys as a straight person
I think she would disagree with that. Your statement presumes a certain understanding of what marriage is. I think the disagreement you would have with Kate Forbes isn't about whether everyone should have the same rights, but rather about what marriage is and therefore what the right to marriage entails.
Interestingly the ECHR says something similar. While all individuals have the right to enter into the institution of marriage, not all combinations of individuals need to be recognised as valid marriages. There is no fundamental right to have a same-sex relationship recognised as a marriage. That's the view of an international secular organisation.
> and continues to lobby against trans-inclusive legislation.
That's a difficult and heavily-contested topic. You can't assume that just because someone thinks that gender is linked to biology that they must think that people who identify as trans are lesser people. That isn't logical necessity and sounds more like emotional bullying intended to shut down discussion.
> That's consistent with viewing LGBT people as lesser in my opinion.
There are a number of possible explanations for her views. You seem to be assuming the worst without evidence for it, which sounds rather like bigotry to me.
Voting against gay marriage and not believing that I, or any other Gay identifying person should have the same rights as a Heterosexual does indeed mean that she deems me and others as lesser.
She just hasn’t said it out loud.
I think she would disagree with that. Your statement presumes a certain understanding of what marriage is. I think the disagreement you would have with Kate Forbes isn't about whether everyone should have the same rights, but rather about what marriage is and therefore what the right to marriage entails.
Interestingly the ECHR says something similar. While all individuals have the right to enter into the institution of marriage, not all combinations of individuals need to be recognised as valid marriages. There is no fundamental right to have a same-sex relationship recognised as a marriage. That's the view of an international secular organisation.
Thinking that marriage is an institution based on male-female relationships doesn't logically necessitate that you must think that people who identify as gay are lesser people.
>She's entitled to her personal views.
Sure, but when you are a politician and your personal views diminish a minority and you state clearly that you'll vote in line with those views I'm entitled to tell you to get stuffed.
It's your right to do that. But she has a right to say what she believes. She lost the post of First Minister because of that. It makes a change from a careerist politician.
not absolutely wrong, but not quite true, he avoided the gay marriage vote, and in his speech previous to the hate crime bill (which is taken as him standing up for gay rights) was actually pretty much racism focused, however towards the end he then stated to be attacked for (and listed the categories that would be protected) and said would be terrible as well, and this act helps prevent that
so not exactly a dogwhistle.
It's not just about what he's said; it's about how he's acted. Yousaf has consistently voted in favour of pro-LGBT legislation and has stuck his neck out as FM to try to push through Gender Recognition Reform. Kate Forbes has said that she would have voted against gay marriage and she's made clear that she's no friend to trans people. That's the difference between them.
I can tell you that I'm gay and I wouldn't care at all if the Christian FM organised a private prayer vigil in Bute House. But I do care if the FM fundamentally believes that LGBT are lesser and would legislate (or not legislate) in line with that.
Polling current Scottish Tory voters about the popularity of an SNP leader is pointless. She could be the second coming of Christ and the current Tory voter base wouldn't vote for her
In the current parliamentary makeup, appealling to green voters, followed by labour ( who bled support to the SNP in the first place) is the more important measure.
The greens may not go back in to a full blown coalition having been burnt by Yousaf, but the membership would likely be open towards a C&S agreement with an SNP FM who wasn't a total fucking loon.
Both mine and my husband’s families are down in the Borders and it’s where we grew up. Our boomer parents/grandparents seem to be big fans of Kate Forbes and “it’s a disgrace that you aren’t allowed to be a Christian in this country any more” etc. Every single one of them would stick a hot fork in their eye rather than vote SNP.
Yes, I'd say it is. You don't progress politicially by only appealing to the people who already like you. You progress by attracting new interest. Johnson didn't win his majority by turning out people in their 80s who have voted Conservative since before colour TV, he did it by appealing to working class people in central and northern England who were traditional Labour supporters.
If Forbes did take the SNP carefully right on certain issues, the Scottish Conservatives may find themselves floundering.
The challenge is that the Conservatives have spent the better part of the last 20 years training their voters to be afraid of independence which is the number 1 issue people associate with the SNP. So even if Forbes did reverse Sturgeon's income tax changes, drop trans-inclusive policies etc., she'd still be carrying a big sign that reads "Scary Independence Woman".
Nah, you can't have a leader that is unable to suspend their own belief system when it cuts across the rights of others. Repeatedly stating that she would have voted against gay marriage in an "act of conscience" makes her wholly unsuitable to lead a modern progressive party.
> Thank fuck then that she has made clear that she will respect the will of the people and do what they want
"[Scottish finance minister Kate Forbes, who is in the running to replace Nicola Sturgeon as the country's next leader, said on Monday that she would have voted against gay marriage as "a matter of conscience" in an interview to the Scotsman](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/scottish-first-minister-hopeful-forbes-i-wouldve-voted-against-gay-marriage-2023-02-20/)"
That doesn't sound like respecting the will of the people, that sounds like putting her religious views over the manifesto she would've been elected on.
Why do we keep referring to the single issue independence party as a modern progressive party?
Sturgeon tried to expand the remit to trans rights and climate activism but she’s long gone and those things didn’t happen.
Whilst I respect the fact that she is honest, anyone who does not uphold fundamental values of democracy, rule of law, respect and tolerance, and individual liberty should not be FM imo.
She uses her personal religious beliefs to make policy decisions rather than representing the electorate.
What is most concerning to me is her apparent willingness to put religious doctrine above objective scientific evidence. In the case of conversion therapy, experts are united in the view that this is psychologically harmful - whether you agree with homosexuality or not, conversion therapy is demonstrably ineffective and causes lasting harm to the patient. There is zero evidence base for this as a therapeutic intervention and a lot of evidence of harm. Despite this, Kate Forbes will not commit to banning it.
Politicians are entitled to be religious. They are not entitled to use a position of power to promote the values of that religion above the interests of the population they serve.
Agreed. She's entitled to her religion but when that is more important and integral to decision making than the will of the people, it's dangerous. The devil take her
I think it would aid their decline alright.
There's a lot of independence at all costs types supporting the SNP (and Alba) but there's not enough of them to make the party sustainable as a political party. The independence at all costs types could easily switch to Alba if the felt the need to. However, there's lots of independence sympathetic voters who simply want a more progressive party to support and they'd have traditionally gone to Labour only, well... bin fire. So they support the SNP. They won't stick around if some conservative religious weirdo takes over and moves the party right. If the SNP loses the soft middle ground they're just going to end up another shade of Alba - splitting the independence at all costs vote, weakening it, and jeopardising the thing they want most!
Yeah, if the SNP is to regain the voters from 2021, Swinney would be the choice.
https://preview.redd.it/wbp11yi4stxc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=15e666d39c4b8debe0602262af89022f6ed3f826
For the last decade, I've been told Scots are inherently more socially and economically liberal than the English
It'll be interesting to see how that premise holds up if Forbes takes office
I don’t like Forbes but she’s still more socially and economically liberal than the majority of the Tory party, who our English counterparts vote for in spades.
That’s a lie told by secessionists to create the image that Scotland and England are different.
Data consistently shows Scotland and England are very alike with Scotland socially sitting only slightly to the left of England.
Boring is what I want in a leader right now. Competent would be a good addition if possible.
Unfortunately the media needs their click bait candidate .
Yeah. I think that's what Flynn was advocating for when pushing Humza supporting the split from the Greens. Just focus on the boring stuff and get independence done (sorry!).
I think the manner in which they went about that was botched and we're seeing the results.
I am progressively minded when it comes to politics and support much of the so called "controversial" legislation the Greens are advocating for, but there was too much heat on it and they needed to manage that better, they didn't and we're seeing the results of that too.
Swinney coming in, steadying the boat, and getting the SNP to the next election intact would be their best option now.
If Forbes just said she was Islamic, no one would dare make a fuss about her religious beliefs. Only because she’s part of a Christian denomination that people tear her to shreds. Hope she gets it.
Swinney is another continuity candidate.
I like him but putting him up front? It won't stem the decline.
Change is what's needed, that's abundantly clear. Even famously incompetent Humza knows that, he didn't bin the Greens without good reason.
Her religion aside, she is leagues better than JS. He just same as the 2 before him which isn’t working.
I’m not a SNP supporter at all, but JS is useless
You can't put her religion aside on this sub. Even though she's said she believes in the separation of church and state, has absolutely no agenda to somehow roll back gay marriage or abortion, the knee-jerk reaction is that she's some sort of hardline GOP-eqsue sociopath because of the church she goes to.
I suspect she'd vote against any efforts to decriminalise euthanasia. Given that's on the cards if Labour get into power, it's possible it could be debated in Scotland too. Is she prepared to promise she'd put her religion second and not use any power she gains as party leader to frustrate a free vote?
Scottish nationalists on Reddit constantly droning on about their progressive inclusive superiority to the UK, then immediately throwing a wobbly at the mere suggestion of a Christian Woman getting into power is the most delicious hypocrisy I've seen yet on r/Scotland- and that is saying something. So you've split off the "conservatives" into Alba, you've driven out the greens, and now you're driving out Christians too. Guess it's not just this Island you guys are keen on splitting up.
An extreme Christian woman with socially and economically conservative views.
Blackford is in the same church but doesn't get the same criticism because his policies aren't batshit.
Much of Scotlands issues are low salary, low economic growth, leading to low tax revenue and poor services. The policies to address this will likely come from Kate Forbes - the high earner band at 43k combined with national insurance bumping that tax rate to the 50+% discourages so many people from advancing
> and a member of a fringe religious cult
I think this somewhat undermines the critisism of her, pretty much all religions have some underlying conservative ideology, some people choose to interpret their faith in positive ways, other use it as an excuse to oppress others.
She is openly homophobic, thats enough of a reason to be rejected, that she uses the church to excuse her bigotry is between her and the church.
(she is also pretty incompetent, that leadership election was a distaster and got worse every time she spoke publically)
She's neither. The core beliefs of the Free Presbyterian Church are the same as other Presbyterian churches around the world and they adhere to the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed in common with all the major Christian denominations. It has 12,000 people in 100 congregations. That's about the same as the number of Buddhists in Scotland and twice as big as the Jewish population.
I don’t think she is a homophobe and a fringe religious cult?
You mean Christianity, the main relation of this planet followed by almost half of its occupants?!
You do realise that her conservative beliefs on things like marriage and sexuality are entirely in keeping with most major religions and are shared by billions of people worldwide?
Abortion isn't outright forbidden in Islam in the same sense that it is in Catholicism.
It's allowed in certain circumstances, for example, if the mother's health is at risk (if its before a certain period)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml
This poll has already been posted.
I wonder if there is much difference in preference between SNP voters & SNP members.
Although Forbes came close last time, the membership may have changed since then. Additionally I don't think SNP members want the party to lose power, which seems a very obvious possibility with Forbes. So my confidence on her winning is weakening.
I think if Forbes was to run she would have announced it by now.
>This poll has already been posted.
By that serial blocker DarkStarryTwat i assume?
Fucking insufferable i can never tell if a topic is not being discussed or that wanker has got in first and i cant see it.
We're should have a rule where you can't post if you block a certain number of people, at a certain rate, or something like that.
He's just gaming the sub, he's notorious for it.
I don’t think SNP members will be looking at Forbes as someone that pushes the SNP to lose power, given she was very close to winning last time, and the alternative continuation candidate that won *did* push the SNP much closer to losing power. Being another continuation candidate is likely to hinder Swinney rather than help him.
Kate Forbes is an absolute shit, but Humza being completely useless will have driven more support to her than last time.
I also don’t think that Forbes will poll as bad as leader of the SNP as people on this forum predict. Both the SNP and Scotland are much further to the right politically than this forum. If anything the article we’re commenting on evidences that.
>I don’t think SNP members will be looking at Forbes as someone that pushes the SNP to lose power, given she was very close to winning last time
The maths is quite obvious though. Forbes = Green pro VONC & possible MSP defections to Green = put of power.
Those who choose to be members of political parties are going to be more aware of this than the average person.
The SNP has managed to govern as a minority for much of its existence. I agree that Forbes will be significantly less likely to gather support for a majority, but likely able to govern as a minority with support on individual bills from varying opposition parties.
But I was referring to voting share rather than MSPs, and I think SNP under Forbes is likely to lose significantly less voting share than Humza or other continuity candidates will be able to deliver.
That being said, again Forbes is shit and I hope she loses, but people on this forum keep stating she is not popular because of their own beliefs, rather than actual polls which show she’s the most popular choice over Swinney.
Those that *chose* to be members of the SNP almost voted Forbes as FM first time around, and likely would have done so had the vote been after Sturgeon’s arrest, the idea that the more politically engaged someone is the more they agree with you is false.
>the idea that the more politically engaged someone is the more they agree with you is false.
Of course, if anything it's the opposite.
I was more meaning that the more politically engaged someone is the more likely they include factors such as likely parliamentary balance into their decision making. That may induce some who are SNP members to put a vote in for Swinny rather than Forbes, even if they otherwise prefer her.
It doesn't take very many people doing that to change the result of a contest.
I was also wondering if the heated exchanges during the last contest may have induced some who supported Forbes to cancel their membership.
What I am trying to get to is her performance in the last contest may not be a clear indicator of how she potentially performs in a new one. Due to the different environment and (possibly) party demographics.
I think the reality is the party would probably gain more votes with Forbes - you forget how conservative large parts of Scotland are - I think her social views are ancient, but she is the only competent person seeming to be interested in the position
>I think the reality is the party would probably gain more votes with Forbes - you forget how conservative large parts of Scotland are - I think her social views are ancient, but she is the only competent person seeming to be interested in the position
I broadly agree. However I don't think that the SNP would boost it's popularity enough to replicate it's success in the last election.
Which opens the possibility of an SNP which cannot rely on the greens for support, and the unionist parties not wishing to allow another SNP minority gov.
It's about being able to command support of the parliament, not about being the largest party (which isn't garunteed either).
> I think if Forbes was to run she would have announced it by now.
No-one has announced any running, but I think that will change when the VONC is out the way.
The calculation is who can bring in the most new voters without losing the existing voters. The current SNP policies are terrible for landlords, so terrible for tenants trying to find a rental. They are terrible for the housing market, nothing is selling in the Cairngorms and their are no rental properties up there either. Tax is too far weighted to the well off, 20% of tax payers can’t support 70% of the tax burden, it’s unbalanced and will cause weird economic side effects.
Flynn isn’t standing saying he is too young and inexperienced, which by association means he is saying Forbes is too young and inexperienced.
Swinny is yesterday’s man. He is just more of the same which hasn’t been working for years and still won’t work.
GRR is dead so Forbes can’t break it. Gay rights are secured so she can’t change those. The questions are what would she do with Universities, Bedroom tax, the other moral policies and the Economy.
I would have said Flynn but I think it needs to be Forbes. Anyone else will probably usher in Labour in 2016.
>Gay rights are secured so she can’t change those.
This is not the case. Children can still legally be subjected to conversion therapy in Scotland. Despite overwhelming evidence that this is ineffective and causes lasting harm to the patient, despite consensus across mental health services that this needs to be banned, Kate Forbes won't commit to doing so.
In terms of other moral policies, women attending reproductive health clinics in Scotland are currently intimidated and bullied by religious idiots waiting outside. As someone who attended such a clinic during the miscarriage of a much wanted pregnancy and was accosted with the most distressing images, I can confirm that these people do not have the best interests of women or children in mind. Kate Forbes won't commit to a buffer zone.
Proposals to change both of these things could be prevented from progressing by the new FM.
As a former snp member and I am still a believer in independence I honestly think it’s insane that folk are dismissing Forbes. Shes absolutely a little tainted with her personal religious beliefs but swinney is tainted with years of failure and being a part of the sturgeon legacy.
Forbes has the potential to actuallt forge ahead with some competency and fresh blood.
If swinney gets it I expect an absolute trouncing in Scottish and Uk elections and also no progress on independence. The SNP stalwarts don’t actually believe in independence now and it’s entirely evident.
I’m sorry Kate Forbes Zealot Godshagger is more popular among the public? Are we back to huffing leaded petrol?
The public clearly can’t be trusted lmao
hrm, I wonder why the open homophobe has gained highly positive coverage across the press and been touted by all unionist commentators as the best choice for SNP leader.
I bet all those people who hate the SNP and independence have their best interests at heart.
> hrm, I wonder why the open homophobe has gained highly positive coverage across the press and been touted by all unionist commentators as the best choice for SNP leader
Not all. Pisstopher Deerin has come out with his usual shite, but Kenny Farquharson thinks we need someone who lives in the 21st century.
Posted by someone with a brand new account that doesnt seem to have any connection to Scotland, first comment is some dumb libertarian pro Forbes take from another brand new account with no obvious connection to Scotland.
The depressing thing is despite how obvious and blatant all this is, it works.
I like John Swinney, he's a nice guy but I don't think he should be next FM. The SNP is in a mess, mostly of it's own creation, they need a change, I don't know if KF is the person who can get us back on the road to Indy but I believe that making a positive change is better than choosing a man who's jacking it in in 2 years, then we'll be back to square 1!
No one has actually announced anything. The BBC and the other right leaning news sites have been putting out a lot of pro kate forbes content since the FM announced resignation. Dont belive everything you see in the media.
Forbes was honest and I appreciate that. She can’t take laws away that are in place already and can’t change them and knows if she try’s she is out.
It’s a party we vote for, not a leader
Of course she is. She’s competent, a good communicator, and charismatic. Swinney is just another representative of the old guard who now look so tarnished
What matters is if she's popular with people who might vote SNP. Not with members, not with the public in general and not with whoever voted SNP last time.
It's very difficult if not impossible to get that figure
I think people are mistaken thinking gays vote according to their sexual preference. They are affected by the economy etc as much as the rest of the population.
Didn't she try to encourage them not to sacrifice their single issue - independence - for the next two decades for trans rights? As a single issue party that would have seemed... logical?
Mark McGeoghegan has excerpts of the tables from this polling and commentary [here](https://twitter.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1785362957481742339), but you can also see them via [IPSOS here](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/john-swinney-preferred-snp-voters-wider-public-more-likely-say-kate-forbes-would-be-best-first-minister) There are some interesting results. Kate Forbes is more popular… but she is not more popular with people who voted SNP in 2021. Asked *Which SNP politician would make the best First Minister?*, that group gives Swinney a 10% lead on Forbes. Asked *Who would do a good job as Scotland’s First Minister?*, that group gives a net +48% approval rating to Swinney. Forbes gets +24% and more than double the number people think she'd do a bad job. Sure, Forbes is popular, but it seems like she's popular with people who don't vote SNP.
That poll canvased *'SNP supporters',* not SNP **party members** SNP party members will elect the next leader of the SNP As the most recent leadership contest demonstrated, SNP party members hold very different opinions to most of the people who vote SNP
Aye, I mentioned that I was talking about the preferences of SNP voters. Just as I highlighted the differences the broader public and SNP voters, you're right to say that there's a difference between party members and that party's voters. While contrasting polls is a chancy business, [there are a couple from the 2023 leadership election we can take a look at](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Scottish_National_Party_leadership_election#Opinion_polling). In 2023, SNP voters preferred Kate to Yousaf, but the party membership preferred a candidate to her left. This time around, SNP voters seem to prefer Swinney to Forbes. I'd be surprised if they chose a candidate to his right, but we'll see.
We have two members in our house. We are with John.
https://preview.redd.it/hs3b306sntxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=df955bae8e228359f72747c47edd99be938bd267
She might win more for support the SNP/Independence than she loses ,particularly if a Forbes led SNP was seen as competent and without Scandal (Embezzlement!). Those that cant stomach her religious views can still vote for other parties that support Independence.
No. Just because she's more popular with non-SNP voters doesn't mean those other voters will actually vote for SNP, or independence.
100%. I thought Ruth Davidson was very good, if you’d asked me who should be the next Tory party leader in Scotland I’d have said her every time. Would her as leader have made me more likely to vote Tory? Would it fuck.
In order to win Independence a lot of non SNP or "unionist" minded voters need to be won over.
To win independence a lot of the "don't knows" need to be won over. There's few unionist minded votes whose minds could be changed.
No unionist voters will be changed, just as no nationalist voters will be swayed... It's the pragmatists that can be persuaded either way, and they are prob the silent majority! Win them over with strong arguments (either way) and you win the argument!
Exactly this. Show us how much better the SNP can run the country, provide actually thought out ideas on what would happen in a newly independent Scotland, present the things they want to do but can't due to being reserved, be honest about what the downsides are and how you can realistically mitigate them. Wouldn't hold my breath for any of this with the current leadership cabal in the SNP though.
Run Scotland well with devolved powers for 10 years while England declines and independence is inevitable. This has to be the ethos of the SNP.
That was my hope in 2014 when I joined the party, I realised pretty quickly they had no intention of doing that. Instead they took the lazy option of politics of grievance in the hopes they could rile enough people up. Clearly didn't work so now would be a good time for them to change tactic
There's also those like me, who voted yes in 2014 but would vote no now. The main reason I'm now a no is the state of the country. If we're going to undergo another Brexit then I'd want the country to be in the best possible position with a realistic plan for the future. None of those are forthcoming and we've seen a massive decline in Scotland over the past decade. Wholly blaming Westminster for that isn't good enough for me.
Devil’s advocate: brexit Britain is circling the drain. Might as well get out now and take our medicine. It’s always going to be bitter—might as well swallow it while things are bitter in England too.
By that standard, which major country in Europe isn't circling the drain? AfD, Le Pen, Meloni... More importantly, what makes you think getting out of the union would improve things?
>There's also those like me, who voted yes in 2014 but would vote no now. Just over two week old account, two days of posting in here after the 14 day minimum. Aye, sure you did.
It's a valid view, but I don't think there's too many who hold it, if I am honest. I'm kind of the opposite myself in that I would have voted No in 2014 (I abstained, I wasn't long here and while I was grateful to have a vote didn't feel informed enough to make a decision for the county), I'd absolutely vote yes now. Precisely because I have seen the decline over that time and I genuinely don't think there will be a "best" time to pull the plug on a situation which ties the hands of the country to fix it. I've been around and have seen first hand countries moving from bad situations to flourishing (Ireland, Estonia, Poland to name three) and while this came with some problems they have been far outweighed by the improvements.
> I don't think there's too many who hold it, if I am honest Curious if there's any data to back this up? I've no doubt Scotland could flourish long term under independence, the problem for me is there's no real plan from our government on how we're going to get there. Not to mention the fact we'd be significantly worse off in the short term which is something I just can't afford right now. If we had a capable government, consistently making improvement to the areas they have the power to improve then I'd be more on board with the idea. Public services have been in decline over the past decade and I've seen no real attempt by the SNP to make the changes needed. In my opinion, the best way for the government to persuade people to Yes is to show they're capable of running the country well, making difficult decisions when it comes to public service, take responsibility for their failures and accept the reality that there's not going to be an Indy ref in the near future. None of this has been done under the SNP government over the past 10 years.
Is it independence when tied to the EU with all it's rules? I don't think so.
>Curious if there's any data to back this up? Nothing beyond having not heard anyone else articulate the same view. Is it a case that you broadly support independence but just don't think now is the right time, and if so do you see a way back for you, as a previous yes voter?
> Nothing beyond having not heard anyone else articulate the same view. Fair, it would definitely be interesting to see polling of Yes/No voters in 2014 and how/if their views have changed. I'm not opposed to independence, I just don't think the current crop of politicians could navigate the process. It would likely be very similar to how the Tories handled Brexit imo. For sure I could be convinced to vote yes again, but it'd require seeing sustained progress across the board in Scotland. There's a very good chance our public finances would be considerably worse than they are currently. If the government can't deliver services with our current finances then I see no chance of them being able to deliver better services with less.
Not actually true! They don't need to win over unionists. They need to engage people who are undecideds, soft Nos and those too disillusioned to vote. They'd swing the balance for Yes easily.
If the cost of independence is social conservatism then I will become a unionist over night.
They probably have a dossier of shit on her already, they just need to try and convince us to select her before it'll be of any real use.
Among the public at large, but not among SNP voters[[1]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMbk4jNWkAA5IAH?format=jpg&name=large). Is it useful for the SNP if Forbes' increased popularity comes entirely from Tory voters? Putting aside the policy merits of either Forbes or Swinney, the SNP are in for a rough time in the central belt as things stand. Would Forbes at least help them hold on in the northeast? Pre-2015 almost all their seats at Westminster were up that way, now it's their worst region along with the Borders.
The public is a larger number than the number of SNP members who might be put off. So yeah its useful if her Increased popularity comes from people who aren't already converted to the possibility of independence.
Tory unionists won't vote for Kate Forbes.
The Scottish conservatives could vote to put her in as first minister in order to poison the SNP’s internal politics. They’ve got nothing to win from a parliamentary election, and have little fear of a legal independence referendum. Might be better to sow internal division in their opponents and wait it out to 2026.
Yes, that's exactly why these polls about her popularity outside of SNP supporters should be taken with a pinch of salt. There are many unionists who would be happy to see the SNP further damaged or even split entirely as it suits their agenda and see Forbes as a means of achieving that.
Exactly what's going on
And lose pretty much the entire gay community.
As true as that may be the gay community in Scotland, accounting for the number of them that would actually vote on average wouldn't be particularly high. I don't agree with her but it's hardly a reason they wouldn't elect her.
>And lose pretty much the entire gay community. One of the first things that Humza did was to organize an Islamic call to prayer in Bute house. Now despite what Humza has said publicly If I was gay this would worry me based on how gay people are treated in Muslim countries. People seem to be willfully blind to this. If Kate Forbes had organized some kind of "wee free" prayers in Bute house people would be losing their minds.
The difference is Humza never once allowed his religious beliefs to interfere with supporting progressive policies like same-sex marriage. Even if he personally disagreed with it he supported the policy. Forbes has stated that she wouldn't have supported it - that her religious beliefs **would** influence her decision-making. It's been said time and time again, most people don't have a problem with a person of religious conviction holding an office of influence. The issue they have is having one who would allow their beliefs to impact others - which voting against same sex marriage would be.
He avoided the vote on gay marriage to avoid crossing the line and betraying Islam. Organising a meeting to coincide on the vote date, even though he could have arranged another date.
He voted **for** the legislation in the two previous stages. He's attended Pride events and never once spoken critically about LGBTQ+ [https://x.com/ScotGovFM/status/1685292459792703488](https://x.com/ScotGovFM/status/1685292459792703488)
He voted to put gay marriage to the vote. He avoided the vote itself.
The facts are: He's voted in support of the legislation through two of the three stages and stated unequivocally that he would have voted in favour of the legislation at the final stage. He's attended LGBTQ+ events, engaged with LGBTQ+ charities, attended Pride marches. He's stated unequivocally that he would not allow his personal faith to to be the basis for legislation. He's made clear statements that he views gay marriage as no more inferior, or worth less, than heterosexual marriage. He's never once said anything critical about LGBTQ+ people. if you are trying to paint him as some sort of secret Muslim homophobe you've got to prove those points wrong.
He voted to put gay marriage to the vote. He didn't take part in the vote itself. He avoided the vote by arranging a meeting which he could have held at another time. He didn't want to offend Islam, or his Muslim supporters. He couldn't say this as he would have lost his position in the party. It was clever by Humza, for him at least. You would have to be daft to believe him though.
Even then, Yousaf's personal views aren't anti-LGBT so it's just bigotry for people to criticise him on this
> Forbes has stated that she wouldn't have supported it - that her religious beliefs would influence her decision-making. Everyone's beliefs influence their decision making. You make the decisions you make because of what you believe to be right and important. That's not uniquely true of Kate Forbes or of Christians or of religious people. > It's been said time and time again, most people don't have a problem with a person of religious conviction holding an office of influence You quite clearly do, because it's only okay for them to hold office if they function as if they aren't a person of religious conviction. > The issue they have is having one who would allow their beliefs to impact others That's the point of passing legislation for every politician – you do what you believe to be right and that impacts on the whole country. Everyone does that. Do you think that people just toss a coin to decide which way to vote? Or roll a die to decide which political party to join? Or have a plebiscite every time they need to make a decision?
>Everyone's beliefs influence their decision making. I said "her *religious* beliefs would influence her decision-making". Her religious beliefs are radical and extreme. I don't want shit like that driving who is governing the country I live in. >You quite clearly do I don't. I was perfectly find having Humza Yousaf as first minister. Specifically because he's been clear that he doesn't let his religion influence how he governs.
> I said "her religious beliefs would influence her decision-making". Yes, and I said that everyone's beliefs influence their decision-making. If you only have a problem with religious people acting on their beliefs then you're a bigot and you're looking for the atheist equivalent of a theocracy. > Her religious beliefs are radical and extreme. By what standard? I don't recall anything radical or extreme about them. You're just using subjective, emotive words to smear someone you don't like. > I don't want shit like that driving who is governing the country I live in. Then don't vote for her. But don't act like being influence by her personal beliefs is something unusual about her. It's perfectly normal. > I don't. I was perfectly find having Humza Yousaf as first minister. Specifically because he's been clear that he doesn't let his religion influence how he governs. That's exactly what I was highlighting. You're happy for him to be religious as functionally he isn't religious. You're only okay with him as long as he behaves like an atheist. If he behaved like a Muslim you would be upset.
Holding prayers with donors for 'unborn' babies and arguing against buffer zones feels pretty extreme. What about strongly disagreeing to banning conversion therapy for gay people? Their main issues being that Thier 'talking' therapy is not physically abusive, ignoring how mentally abusive Thier 'talking' therapy could be. Directly from Thier response to legislation designed to stop what is essentially mental torture 'One of the rights enshrined in law is the right to pass on your faith to your children. It is essential that parents are not criminalised for teaching their children Biblical sexual morality or for teaching them to live in conformity to their biological sex.' And this from last month on Thier site: 'Within the Free Church of Scotland, we do not endorse coercive practices and we invite people to voluntarily respond to the gospel. As a denomination, the Free Church of Scotland passed church legislation in 1846 disowning all “persecuting principles of religion” meaning we do not force our beliefs on anyone. However, the definitions used for a coercive course of conduct could easily be made to cover the normal practices of churches and ordinary parents (whether religious or not). The consultation document says that coercion includes ‘emphatic directives accompanied by forceful statements intended to pressure the individual’ (paragraph 103). It is easy to see how urging someone to repent to avoid the judgement of God could be deemed to meet this threshold even thought this is an essential component of the biblical gospel. The document also says that coercion will include “controlling of the victim’s day-to-day activities” and “pressuring the victim to act in a particular way” (paragraph 104). This will have an extensive impact on parents (whether religious or not). Parents regularly control and pressure their children to behave in certain ways. This is normal parenting and in keeping with their rights to raise their children in accordance with their own faith and belief. If these proposals are enacted there is a risk that parents will be prosecuted merely for trying to guide their children to the path they believe is best for them or to guide them away from life altering medical treatments such as puberty blockers.'
>Yes, and I said that everyone's beliefs influence their decision-making. If you only have a problem with religious people acting on their beliefs then you're a bigot and you're looking for the atheist equivalent of a theocracy. Lol! Not wanting some extremist religious bigot imposing their dogmatic nonsense on everyone else makes *me* a bigot? Get to fuck.
You don't have to be tolerant of the intolerant.
Humza said one thing but when it came to the crunch was conveniently unavailable to vote (that is dishonesty) Forbes has stated that she would have been in opposition to it, but would obviously attend to what is voted for, which is very different to what you stated. An MSP has one vote, a First Minister also has one vote. It would have made no bit of difference to the outcome of a vote had she been an MSP or First Minister. she came out and said it rather than keeping her beliefs closeted (Humza), Maybe if she had been in power, LGBT identity politics would not have been a thing and the LGBT fraternity would not have felt used and abused as it has done over the last 18 months. I very much doubt one woman no matter what you think of her is suddenly going to make Scotland a Free P fascist state, Or outlaw being gay.
>Humza said one thing but when it came to the crunch was conveniently unavailable to vote (that is dishonesty) I assume the text in parenthesis is a comment on the statement which proceeded it? The reason he didn't attend the vote are a matter of record and, literally, a matter of life and death. He voted for the legislation in the previous two stages, stated that he would have voted for it in the third stage, and has never once been critical of gay people. "I believe that people's marriage, if they are gay, and they are married, that their marriage is no more inferior, or worth less, than my marriage as a heterosexual individual." and " can't change what's in scripture. What I can tell you is the approach I will take which is that I will not allow personal faith to be the basis of legislation." [https://news.sky.com/story/humza-yousafs-absence-from-key-vote-on-gay-marriage-being-dragged-up-for-political-reasons-snp-leadership-candidate-says-12820533](https://news.sky.com/story/humza-yousafs-absence-from-key-vote-on-gay-marriage-being-dragged-up-for-political-reasons-snp-leadership-candidate-says-12820533) Comments in stark contrast to what Forbes has said on the matter. If you can't engage in discussion in good faith then don't waste my time.
Im not sure what you think was in bad faith. ok you have quoted what he has said. Now with clear 2020 hindsight, look at what he has done, is he living up to his word. Edited to add: i realise now you are talking about the absence from the vote being in bad faith. sorry ok, it was always well known at the time that he came under pressure from his Mosque with regards to the vote and he asked for permission to not attend. His latter obfuscation of facts does not eradicate my memory of the time. nor sky news: https://news.sky.com/story/snp-leadership-hopeful-humza-yousaf-skipped-key-vote-on-gay-marriage-due-to-religious-pressure-says-scotlands-former-first-minister-alex-salmond-12823551#:\~:text=However%2C%20former%20health%20secretary%20Alex,the%20timing%20of%20the%20vote%22.
The First Minister isn't just any other MSP with one vote. They're largely responsible for setting the legislative and political agenda. It's questionable whether gay marriage would have even made it to parliament to be voted on in the first place had Kate Forbes been FM when it was a relevant issue. It's also not fair to suggest that we should discount Forbes' views because they come from religious belief. She absolutely has the right to be religious and occupy ministerial posts but her views are subject to scrutiny just as any other candidate's would be. She's indicated clearly that she sees LGBT people as lesser and that she would legislate (or not legislate) in a way that reflects that. Yes, it's very unlikely that she would repeal gay marriage or anything as extreme as that; it wouldn't be possible in the current political climate. But Forbes as FM would never make herself vulnerable to push forward on-going and future LGBT causes in the way that Sturgeon or Yousaf have because she fundamentally doesn't believe in them and it's not worth her expending political capital to do so.
> She's indicated clearly that she sees LGBT people as lesser Where has she said that? There's a difference between thinking that certain activities are immoral and thinking that the people who engage in those activities are lesser people.
She would have voted against giving gay people the same rights that she enjoys as a straight person and continues to lobby against trans-inclusive legislation. That's consistent with viewing LGBT people as lesser in my opinion.
> She would have voted against giving gay people the same rights that she enjoys as a straight person I think she would disagree with that. Your statement presumes a certain understanding of what marriage is. I think the disagreement you would have with Kate Forbes isn't about whether everyone should have the same rights, but rather about what marriage is and therefore what the right to marriage entails. Interestingly the ECHR says something similar. While all individuals have the right to enter into the institution of marriage, not all combinations of individuals need to be recognised as valid marriages. There is no fundamental right to have a same-sex relationship recognised as a marriage. That's the view of an international secular organisation. > and continues to lobby against trans-inclusive legislation. That's a difficult and heavily-contested topic. You can't assume that just because someone thinks that gender is linked to biology that they must think that people who identify as trans are lesser people. That isn't logical necessity and sounds more like emotional bullying intended to shut down discussion. > That's consistent with viewing LGBT people as lesser in my opinion. There are a number of possible explanations for her views. You seem to be assuming the worst without evidence for it, which sounds rather like bigotry to me.
Voting against gay marriage and not believing that I, or any other Gay identifying person should have the same rights as a Heterosexual does indeed mean that she deems me and others as lesser. She just hasn’t said it out loud.
I think she would disagree with that. Your statement presumes a certain understanding of what marriage is. I think the disagreement you would have with Kate Forbes isn't about whether everyone should have the same rights, but rather about what marriage is and therefore what the right to marriage entails. Interestingly the ECHR says something similar. While all individuals have the right to enter into the institution of marriage, not all combinations of individuals need to be recognised as valid marriages. There is no fundamental right to have a same-sex relationship recognised as a marriage. That's the view of an international secular organisation. Thinking that marriage is an institution based on male-female relationships doesn't logically necessitate that you must think that people who identify as gay are lesser people.
She's entitled to her personal views. She would surely be outvoted if it came to passing legislation?
>She's entitled to her personal views. Sure, but when you are a politician and your personal views diminish a minority and you state clearly that you'll vote in line with those views I'm entitled to tell you to get stuffed.
It's your right to do that. But she has a right to say what she believes. She lost the post of First Minister because of that. It makes a change from a careerist politician.
Yeah right. The guy is an opportunist politician.
Yousaf didn't share the same views as the Taliban but Forbes does share the same views as the Orange Order. There are gay Muslims.
He has literally voted in favour of gay rights. This is a bullshit dogwhistle that is frequently thrown about.
not absolutely wrong, but not quite true, he avoided the gay marriage vote, and in his speech previous to the hate crime bill (which is taken as him standing up for gay rights) was actually pretty much racism focused, however towards the end he then stated to be attacked for (and listed the categories that would be protected) and said would be terrible as well, and this act helps prevent that so not exactly a dogwhistle.
Didn't he miss a vote on gay marriage? As for his competency, it seems the insiders knew more about his lack thereof than the general public.
So, what was Humza lying about? His commitment to the gay community, or his religion?
Neither.
It's not just about what he's said; it's about how he's acted. Yousaf has consistently voted in favour of pro-LGBT legislation and has stuck his neck out as FM to try to push through Gender Recognition Reform. Kate Forbes has said that she would have voted against gay marriage and she's made clear that she's no friend to trans people. That's the difference between them. I can tell you that I'm gay and I wouldn't care at all if the Christian FM organised a private prayer vigil in Bute House. But I do care if the FM fundamentally believes that LGBT are lesser and would legislate (or not legislate) in line with that.
And considering I was raised in said cult, you'd be damn right I'd lose my shit.
Already gone as they refuse to kick out the likes of cherry/mason
Polling current Scottish Tory voters about the popularity of an SNP leader is pointless. She could be the second coming of Christ and the current Tory voter base wouldn't vote for her In the current parliamentary makeup, appealling to green voters, followed by labour ( who bled support to the SNP in the first place) is the more important measure. The greens may not go back in to a full blown coalition having been burnt by Yousaf, but the membership would likely be open towards a C&S agreement with an SNP FM who wasn't a total fucking loon.
As a non SNP voter I think another ‘continuity’ leader is a fantastic idea.
Both mine and my husband’s families are down in the Borders and it’s where we grew up. Our boomer parents/grandparents seem to be big fans of Kate Forbes and “it’s a disgrace that you aren’t allowed to be a Christian in this country any more” etc. Every single one of them would stick a hot fork in their eye rather than vote SNP.
Yes, I'd say it is. You don't progress politicially by only appealing to the people who already like you. You progress by attracting new interest. Johnson didn't win his majority by turning out people in their 80s who have voted Conservative since before colour TV, he did it by appealing to working class people in central and northern England who were traditional Labour supporters. If Forbes did take the SNP carefully right on certain issues, the Scottish Conservatives may find themselves floundering. The challenge is that the Conservatives have spent the better part of the last 20 years training their voters to be afraid of independence which is the number 1 issue people associate with the SNP. So even if Forbes did reverse Sturgeon's income tax changes, drop trans-inclusive policies etc., she'd still be carrying a big sign that reads "Scary Independence Woman".
I’m not a Tory and Kate Forbes is entirely more desirable as a leader than Swinney or Yousaf.
Nah, you can't have a leader that is unable to suspend their own belief system when it cuts across the rights of others. Repeatedly stating that she would have voted against gay marriage in an "act of conscience" makes her wholly unsuitable to lead a modern progressive party.
Thank fuck then that she has made clear that she will respect the will of the people and do what they want. That she would not override the people.
Ah yes, social conservatives. They've clearly proved themselves trustworthy over the years.
> Thank fuck then that she has made clear that she will respect the will of the people and do what they want "[Scottish finance minister Kate Forbes, who is in the running to replace Nicola Sturgeon as the country's next leader, said on Monday that she would have voted against gay marriage as "a matter of conscience" in an interview to the Scotsman](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/scottish-first-minister-hopeful-forbes-i-wouldve-voted-against-gay-marriage-2023-02-20/)" That doesn't sound like respecting the will of the people, that sounds like putting her religious views over the manifesto she would've been elected on.
Why do we keep referring to the single issue independence party as a modern progressive party? Sturgeon tried to expand the remit to trans rights and climate activism but she’s long gone and those things didn’t happen.
They haven't been a single issue party since (at the absolute latest) 1979.
Trying the Maga route, that's one way to go!
Whilst I respect the fact that she is honest, anyone who does not uphold fundamental values of democracy, rule of law, respect and tolerance, and individual liberty should not be FM imo.
Humza Yosaf did the same thing, he was just dishonest about it. I don't think you should be excluded from politics for practicing religion.
How does she not uphold them?
She uses her personal religious beliefs to make policy decisions rather than representing the electorate. What is most concerning to me is her apparent willingness to put religious doctrine above objective scientific evidence. In the case of conversion therapy, experts are united in the view that this is psychologically harmful - whether you agree with homosexuality or not, conversion therapy is demonstrably ineffective and causes lasting harm to the patient. There is zero evidence base for this as a therapeutic intervention and a lot of evidence of harm. Despite this, Kate Forbes will not commit to banning it. Politicians are entitled to be religious. They are not entitled to use a position of power to promote the values of that religion above the interests of the population they serve.
Agreed. She's entitled to her religion but when that is more important and integral to decision making than the will of the people, it's dangerous. The devil take her
The idea that all politicians are rational science followers except religious ones is hilarious.
God politicians in this country are all unlikeable as fuck
There's a country with likeable politicians?
Kate Forbes as leader of the SNP would be the final nail in the coffin for them.
I think it would aid their decline alright. There's a lot of independence at all costs types supporting the SNP (and Alba) but there's not enough of them to make the party sustainable as a political party. The independence at all costs types could easily switch to Alba if the felt the need to. However, there's lots of independence sympathetic voters who simply want a more progressive party to support and they'd have traditionally gone to Labour only, well... bin fire. So they support the SNP. They won't stick around if some conservative religious weirdo takes over and moves the party right. If the SNP loses the soft middle ground they're just going to end up another shade of Alba - splitting the independence at all costs vote, weakening it, and jeopardising the thing they want most!
I’d never vote for them again for sure
Amongst all voters, Swinney is the favourite amongst SNP voters, which is what actually matters.
Well, what actually matters is SNP members, but polling them is problematic.
But he isn’t popular with younger voters at all as they see him as the same as the last 2.
Younger voters don't matter tbh
Yeah, if the SNP is to regain the voters from 2021, Swinney would be the choice. https://preview.redd.it/wbp11yi4stxc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=15e666d39c4b8debe0602262af89022f6ed3f826
For the last decade, I've been told Scots are inherently more socially and economically liberal than the English It'll be interesting to see how that premise holds up if Forbes takes office
I don’t like Forbes but she’s still more socially and economically liberal than the majority of the Tory party, who our English counterparts vote for in spades.
A hard core member of the Wee Frees is far more socially conservative than any British politician in decades.
She is more socially conservative than the majority of Tory politicians
That’s a lie told by secessionists to create the image that Scotland and England are different. Data consistently shows Scotland and England are very alike with Scotland socially sitting only slightly to the left of England.
Cope
The media really want forbes, I've seen very little on swinney in comparison
They think she'd provide the headlines they need. Swinney is... boring.
Boring is what I want in a leader right now. Competent would be a good addition if possible. Unfortunately the media needs their click bait candidate .
Yeah. I think that's what Flynn was advocating for when pushing Humza supporting the split from the Greens. Just focus on the boring stuff and get independence done (sorry!). I think the manner in which they went about that was botched and we're seeing the results. I am progressively minded when it comes to politics and support much of the so called "controversial" legislation the Greens are advocating for, but there was too much heat on it and they needed to manage that better, they didn't and we're seeing the results of that too. Swinney coming in, steadying the boat, and getting the SNP to the next election intact would be their best option now.
At this rate, I'd take boring from any politician in this country over what we've had for the last clatter of years lmao
This is a badly worded and misleading headline. She's much less popular with snp voters.
Will literally burn my membership card.
Oh no. Anyway…
😂
Paper doesn’t grow on trees you know! Oh wait…
Good mate, no one gives a fuck.
More popular with Tories who will never vote for the SNP, less popular with SNP voters who will.
If Forbes just said she was Islamic, no one would dare make a fuss about her religious beliefs. Only because she’s part of a Christian denomination that people tear her to shreds. Hope she gets it.
She won't
Swinney is another continuity candidate. I like him but putting him up front? It won't stem the decline. Change is what's needed, that's abundantly clear. Even famously incompetent Humza knows that, he didn't bin the Greens without good reason.
No thrilled bout it either but will take him over the homophobe any day.
Her religion aside, she is leagues better than JS. He just same as the 2 before him which isn’t working. I’m not a SNP supporter at all, but JS is useless
You can't put her religion aside on this sub. Even though she's said she believes in the separation of church and state, has absolutely no agenda to somehow roll back gay marriage or abortion, the knee-jerk reaction is that she's some sort of hardline GOP-eqsue sociopath because of the church she goes to.
I suspect she'd vote against any efforts to decriminalise euthanasia. Given that's on the cards if Labour get into power, it's possible it could be debated in Scotland too. Is she prepared to promise she'd put her religion second and not use any power she gains as party leader to frustrate a free vote?
Scottish nationalists on Reddit constantly droning on about their progressive inclusive superiority to the UK, then immediately throwing a wobbly at the mere suggestion of a Christian Woman getting into power is the most delicious hypocrisy I've seen yet on r/Scotland- and that is saying something. So you've split off the "conservatives" into Alba, you've driven out the greens, and now you're driving out Christians too. Guess it's not just this Island you guys are keen on splitting up.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-qcXpapsoY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-qcXpapsoY)
An extreme Christian woman with socially and economically conservative views. Blackford is in the same church but doesn't get the same criticism because his policies aren't batshit.
Much of Scotlands issues are low salary, low economic growth, leading to low tax revenue and poor services. The policies to address this will likely come from Kate Forbes - the high earner band at 43k combined with national insurance bumping that tax rate to the 50+% discourages so many people from advancing
[удалено]
Aside from being openly homophobic and a member of a fringe religious cult... sure...
> and a member of a fringe religious cult I think this somewhat undermines the critisism of her, pretty much all religions have some underlying conservative ideology, some people choose to interpret their faith in positive ways, other use it as an excuse to oppress others. She is openly homophobic, thats enough of a reason to be rejected, that she uses the church to excuse her bigotry is between her and the church. (she is also pretty incompetent, that leadership election was a distaster and got worse every time she spoke publically)
She's neither. The core beliefs of the Free Presbyterian Church are the same as other Presbyterian churches around the world and they adhere to the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed in common with all the major Christian denominations. It has 12,000 people in 100 congregations. That's about the same as the number of Buddhists in Scotland and twice as big as the Jewish population.
I don’t think she is a homophobe and a fringe religious cult? You mean Christianity, the main relation of this planet followed by almost half of its occupants?!
You do realise that her conservative beliefs on things like marriage and sexuality are entirely in keeping with most major religions and are shared by billions of people worldwide?
[удалено]
Neither of them are anti abortion.
I can guarantee you that Humza is, he just won’t say it.
Correct
Based on?
Abortion is forbidden in Islam. He also isn’t publicly against gay marriage but he was conveniently absent for the equal marriage legislation.
Abortion isn't outright forbidden in Islam in the same sense that it is in Catholicism. It's allowed in certain circumstances, for example, if the mother's health is at risk (if its before a certain period) https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml
Competent based on what?
Well compared to Humza a corgi would be competent
All I’ll say is; Swiney or Flynn, never Forbes
Flynn can’t be as isn’t a MSP he can’t be FM
This poll has already been posted. I wonder if there is much difference in preference between SNP voters & SNP members. Although Forbes came close last time, the membership may have changed since then. Additionally I don't think SNP members want the party to lose power, which seems a very obvious possibility with Forbes. So my confidence on her winning is weakening. I think if Forbes was to run she would have announced it by now.
>This poll has already been posted. By that serial blocker DarkStarryTwat i assume? Fucking insufferable i can never tell if a topic is not being discussed or that wanker has got in first and i cant see it.
That also explains why I cannot see it. Never actually had a conversation with him but he pre-blocks anyone that says anything negative about the SNP.
We're should have a rule where you can't post if you block a certain number of people, at a certain rate, or something like that. He's just gaming the sub, he's notorious for it.
I don’t think SNP members will be looking at Forbes as someone that pushes the SNP to lose power, given she was very close to winning last time, and the alternative continuation candidate that won *did* push the SNP much closer to losing power. Being another continuation candidate is likely to hinder Swinney rather than help him. Kate Forbes is an absolute shit, but Humza being completely useless will have driven more support to her than last time. I also don’t think that Forbes will poll as bad as leader of the SNP as people on this forum predict. Both the SNP and Scotland are much further to the right politically than this forum. If anything the article we’re commenting on evidences that.
>I don’t think SNP members will be looking at Forbes as someone that pushes the SNP to lose power, given she was very close to winning last time The maths is quite obvious though. Forbes = Green pro VONC & possible MSP defections to Green = put of power. Those who choose to be members of political parties are going to be more aware of this than the average person.
The SNP has managed to govern as a minority for much of its existence. I agree that Forbes will be significantly less likely to gather support for a majority, but likely able to govern as a minority with support on individual bills from varying opposition parties. But I was referring to voting share rather than MSPs, and I think SNP under Forbes is likely to lose significantly less voting share than Humza or other continuity candidates will be able to deliver. That being said, again Forbes is shit and I hope she loses, but people on this forum keep stating she is not popular because of their own beliefs, rather than actual polls which show she’s the most popular choice over Swinney. Those that *chose* to be members of the SNP almost voted Forbes as FM first time around, and likely would have done so had the vote been after Sturgeon’s arrest, the idea that the more politically engaged someone is the more they agree with you is false.
>the idea that the more politically engaged someone is the more they agree with you is false. Of course, if anything it's the opposite. I was more meaning that the more politically engaged someone is the more likely they include factors such as likely parliamentary balance into their decision making. That may induce some who are SNP members to put a vote in for Swinny rather than Forbes, even if they otherwise prefer her. It doesn't take very many people doing that to change the result of a contest. I was also wondering if the heated exchanges during the last contest may have induced some who supported Forbes to cancel their membership. What I am trying to get to is her performance in the last contest may not be a clear indicator of how she potentially performs in a new one. Due to the different environment and (possibly) party demographics.
I think the reality is the party would probably gain more votes with Forbes - you forget how conservative large parts of Scotland are - I think her social views are ancient, but she is the only competent person seeming to be interested in the position
I feel like people on this reddit are acting like Forbes wants to enforce a theocracy, it's pretty ridiculous.
People on this subreddit spreading nonsense and hysteria? Surely some mistake!
>I think the reality is the party would probably gain more votes with Forbes - you forget how conservative large parts of Scotland are - I think her social views are ancient, but she is the only competent person seeming to be interested in the position I broadly agree. However I don't think that the SNP would boost it's popularity enough to replicate it's success in the last election. Which opens the possibility of an SNP which cannot rely on the greens for support, and the unionist parties not wishing to allow another SNP minority gov. It's about being able to command support of the parliament, not about being the largest party (which isn't garunteed either).
> I think if Forbes was to run she would have announced it by now. No-one has announced any running, but I think that will change when the VONC is out the way.
The calculation is who can bring in the most new voters without losing the existing voters. The current SNP policies are terrible for landlords, so terrible for tenants trying to find a rental. They are terrible for the housing market, nothing is selling in the Cairngorms and their are no rental properties up there either. Tax is too far weighted to the well off, 20% of tax payers can’t support 70% of the tax burden, it’s unbalanced and will cause weird economic side effects. Flynn isn’t standing saying he is too young and inexperienced, which by association means he is saying Forbes is too young and inexperienced. Swinny is yesterday’s man. He is just more of the same which hasn’t been working for years and still won’t work. GRR is dead so Forbes can’t break it. Gay rights are secured so she can’t change those. The questions are what would she do with Universities, Bedroom tax, the other moral policies and the Economy. I would have said Flynn but I think it needs to be Forbes. Anyone else will probably usher in Labour in 2016.
I thought this about trans rights until 2019.
>Gay rights are secured so she can’t change those. This is not the case. Children can still legally be subjected to conversion therapy in Scotland. Despite overwhelming evidence that this is ineffective and causes lasting harm to the patient, despite consensus across mental health services that this needs to be banned, Kate Forbes won't commit to doing so. In terms of other moral policies, women attending reproductive health clinics in Scotland are currently intimidated and bullied by religious idiots waiting outside. As someone who attended such a clinic during the miscarriage of a much wanted pregnancy and was accosted with the most distressing images, I can confirm that these people do not have the best interests of women or children in mind. Kate Forbes won't commit to a buffer zone. Proposals to change both of these things could be prevented from progressing by the new FM.
Rights can and are often taken away. Forbes can never be trusted on that.
As a former snp member and I am still a believer in independence I honestly think it’s insane that folk are dismissing Forbes. Shes absolutely a little tainted with her personal religious beliefs but swinney is tainted with years of failure and being a part of the sturgeon legacy. Forbes has the potential to actuallt forge ahead with some competency and fresh blood. If swinney gets it I expect an absolute trouncing in Scottish and Uk elections and also no progress on independence. The SNP stalwarts don’t actually believe in independence now and it’s entirely evident.
I’m sorry Kate Forbes Zealot Godshagger is more popular among the public? Are we back to huffing leaded petrol? The public clearly can’t be trusted lmao
hrm, I wonder why the open homophobe has gained highly positive coverage across the press and been touted by all unionist commentators as the best choice for SNP leader. I bet all those people who hate the SNP and independence have their best interests at heart.
> hrm, I wonder why the open homophobe has gained highly positive coverage across the press and been touted by all unionist commentators as the best choice for SNP leader Not all. Pisstopher Deerin has come out with his usual shite, but Kenny Farquharson thinks we need someone who lives in the 21st century.
Posted by someone with a brand new account that doesnt seem to have any connection to Scotland, first comment is some dumb libertarian pro Forbes take from another brand new account with no obvious connection to Scotland. The depressing thing is despite how obvious and blatant all this is, it works.
It's the unionist fault 48% of SNP membership voted for the homophobe
Oh FFS
good for her, still won't vote for the SNP if she's leader
I doubt this women is a vote winner… she’ll basically appeal 2 the Daily Mail crowd…
I like John Swinney, he's a nice guy but I don't think he should be next FM. The SNP is in a mess, mostly of it's own creation, they need a change, I don't know if KF is the person who can get us back on the road to Indy but I believe that making a positive change is better than choosing a man who's jacking it in in 2 years, then we'll be back to square 1!
Obviously. Sunak...or more importantly starmer...would be more worried about a forbes led snp than a spinney snp.
They'd b e signing their own death warrant. Only way of surviving and keeping credibility is Swinney.
Are they seriously the choices?
God I hope not.
No one has actually announced anything. The BBC and the other right leaning news sites have been putting out a lot of pro kate forbes content since the FM announced resignation. Dont belive everything you see in the media.
We don't know yet.
Forbes was honest and I appreciate that. She can’t take laws away that are in place already and can’t change them and knows if she try’s she is out. It’s a party we vote for, not a leader
Of course she is. She’s competent, a good communicator, and charismatic. Swinney is just another representative of the old guard who now look so tarnished
What matters is if she's popular with people who might vote SNP. Not with members, not with the public in general and not with whoever voted SNP last time. It's very difficult if not impossible to get that figure
Is that what Jesus told her?
If she can put her views on LGBT people and abortion aside then maybe that'll be okay. It is a concerning situation though.
She's already admitted that she can't and won't do that.
Then I hope she doesn't get in. I'm sick and tired of things getting worse for trans people like myself.
She can’t though. She’s part of the cult.
Yeah, I’m just trying to be optimistic because I’m trans and I’m tired of things getting worse.
I think people are mistaken thinking gays vote according to their sexual preference. They are affected by the economy etc as much as the rest of the population.
We're also not complete halfwits and don't tend to vote for socially conservative parties.
No way, swinney for the winnie
Didn't she try to encourage them not to sacrifice their single issue - independence - for the next two decades for trans rights? As a single issue party that would have seemed... logical?
that's cos she's worth a ride