Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
I'd say Forbes' issue is political, rather than theological. Sturgeon has moulded the SNP as a party that by and large makes the case for independence as a more progressive Scotland being tied to an England that's more conservative and either votes Tory or for a Labour Party that has to concern itself with that and cut its cloth accordingly. Generally bunk of course - as both England and Scotland are much more complex and voters are much more fluid in their views. But incredibly useful bunk for the SNP as it broadens support for independence and gives it a purpose beyond nationalism or technocratic arguments. But it's difficult to see how a leader moves away from that without a schism or draining of support - which she'll have to, as while she may not roll back existing legislation, she won't be proposing anything she can't vote for herself and can't really make that pitch as someone who due to her religion has socially conservative views.
The SNP is an incredibly broad church, reaching from disaster capitalists at one end to to actual Marxists at the other. The one thing they have in common is the belief that Scotland should be an independent country. Nicola Sturgeon settled on a mildly communitarian semi-socialism because that's the Scottish political centre ground previously occupied by Labour.
Incidentally one of Sturgeon's successes is she is Mrs Middle Scotland. If SNP Central Casting had consulted ChatGPT for the ideal leader they would have come up with her. Kate Forbes not so much, but I don't think she will stray that far from the middle point.
Having said that, she's tying herself in knots on her personal morality. Could be a problem.
Yep, her inability to deal with stuff like this is more of a problem than her actual religious views imho.
It's the Tim Farron religion issue - an unwillingness to tell (white) lies means you end up creating a bigger and bigger mess...
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
I really, really oppose this. There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, feels like something out of the last century to oppose it.
What is 'marriage'? If you take it as a religious concept, then it's really restrictive, with the definition altering between religions or even countries. If you take it as a long-term commitment (that may sadly fail) between two people, then it's considerably more open.
I tend towards the latter. If one of the purposes of marriage is to provide stability for kids, then the long-term commitment is the thing that matters.
Then we get into 'marriage' between more than two people, or even between people and other items, such as flint-knapped dildos ...
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Gosh. Marks for honesty but it's still a bit of a shocker. Equal Marriage is totemic as proof of full acceptance of gay people into society. I must check the odds on Yousaf.
He might be a very happy genial chap behind the scenes but he always looks angry !
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
The people using Kate Forbes’ religion to attack her know that nobody would dare use Humza Yousaf’s religion to attack him.
If Humza Yousaf says that same sex marriage is immoral, that would also be bigotry.
People's religious beliefs are just a matter of private conscience, and aren't really relevant. It's also obvious that a hell of a lot of people who belong to different religions don't get their morality by adopting wholesale the moral code of the religion.
It is not remotely bigoted in itself to think that something lawful is or may be immoral. Lots of people think entirely lawful adultery is immoral.
And morality should not be elided with religious belief. All people of all convictions have moral beliefs.
Of course thinking that something lawful is immoral isn't necessarily bigoted. That would be an absurd position to have, and I can't imagine why you think I, or anyone else, would think that.
But clearly thinking somethings are immoral can be bigotry, whether those things are legal or not. Probably you'd agree that thinking "different races marrying is immoral" is bigotry?
Forbes on BBC News - wouldn’t support GRR bill - so that’s just the male candidate supporting it…..
That's going to kick things of with the Greens, surely?
The GRR with the amendments to protect women's refuges, prisons etc on a some sensible basis would have the backing of all major parties and, I think, the public at large?
NEW: SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes tells me: ‘I don’t support self-identification.’
Edit - as Angela Rayner told the Times “I don’t know what’s inside their head” wrt Isla Bryson (the convicted double rapist with prison onset gender dysphoria) - but self-ID relies entirely on “what’s inside their head”….
Not sure having an anti gay , anti abortion bible basher fits in with that .
They are a broad church.
Except for THAT church!
Forbes should forget being SNP leader , the press will do what they did to Farron only worse and she can’t hide away from what her church thinks on certain issues .
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
As a member of a fundamentalist church she couldn't really say anything else. This is their position. The idea that her personal views in this can be separated from the political question is for the birds.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
As a member of a fundamentalist church she couldn't really say anything else. This is their position. The idea that her personal views in this can be separated from the political question is for the birds.
Full marks for honesty, zero for political smarts, should really have had at least some fudge horses in a row at this point.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Oh dear ! Her campaign is already unraveling . Given some of the strongest support for the SNP is younger people her views on certain issues are likely to go down like a bucket of sick !
SNP appear to be in a real bind.
Humza is an obvious stone-cold vote-loser. Kate is personable and plausible but her views seem impossible to square with the SNP's, and Sturgeon's, project of contrasting Scotland with England in terms of liberal social policies - and building a pro-indy alliance with the Greens. Robertson was the obvious solution but he's pulled out.
So favourite now Humza? What’s he going to be like for the SNP?
Wouldn't think so. If Ms Forbes really does commit self-destruction this early it opens up space for Ms Regan - and also, let's not forget, another candidate to come forwards. We've still got till noon on Friday for nominations.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Oh dear ! Her campaign is already unraveling . Given some of the strongest support for the SNP is younger people her views on certain issues are likely to go down like a bucket of sick !
SNP appear to be in a real bind.
Humza is an obvious stone-cold vote-loser. Kate is personable and plausible but her views seem impossible to square with the SNP's, and Sturgeon's, project of contrasting Scotland with England in terms of liberal social policies - and building a pro-indy alliance with the Greens. Robertson was the obvious solution but he's pulled out.
Tricky.
What will the SNP membership make of it?
Perhaps they could contact the Tory Party membership for some advice.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Oh dear ! Her campaign is already unraveling . Given some of the strongest support for the SNP is younger people her views on certain issues are likely to go down like a bucket of sick !
SNP appear to be in a real bind.
Humza is an obvious stone-cold vote-loser. Kate is personable and plausible but her views seem impossible to square with the SNP's, and Sturgeon's, project of contrasting Scotland with England in terms of liberal social policies - and building a pro-indy alliance with the Greens. Robertson was the obvious solution but he's pulled out.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
You don't discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is wrong, you simply enforce the law that gay people not be discriminated against.
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
On that basis a B&B owner could refuse to allow a wheelchair into a room ('wheels might damage the carpet'); since he or she would refuse that to everyone (not just wheelchair users) they'd would get away with it.
Yes, I would have thought it up to the owner of a business who they sell their goods and services to. I'm sure there must be other examples of B&B owners turning down custom without having to explain why. (Large groups of young men, typically.)
Then you'd be wrong. There are nine 'protected characteristics' that you are not allowed to discriminate on.
There are various exemptions, unless somebody can confirm that it has changed.
The Equality Act 2010 permits discrimination in various circumstances. Particular occupations are exempt. and I think some services if they can justify it in terms of the act - BME housing associations, for example.
Sex discrimination is also permitted in political candidate selection, which is why All Women Shortlists are legal. That currently has a sunset clause for 2030, which was extended from the initial sunset clause.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Oh dear ! Her campaign is already unraveling . Given some of the strongest support for the SNP is younger people her views on certain issues are likely to go down like a bucket of sick !
SNP appear to be in a real bind.
Humza is an obvious stone-cold vote-loser. Kate is personable and plausible but her views seem impossible to square with the SNP's, and Sturgeon's, project of contrasting Scotland with England in terms of liberal social policies - and building a pro-indy alliance with the Greens. Robertson was the obvious solution but he's pulled out.
Tricky.
What will the SNP membership make of it?
More candidates still possible. Almost a week.
Maybe, but given all the big names have already said no, its not leaving many obvious ones to declare.
Tories and SNP surely are doing a good job of making Labour look like they are once again the centre ground. I am sure Blair is popping the champagne, he will surely be very close to the new Government.
Not sure having an anti gay , anti abortion bible basher fits in with that .
They are a broad church.
Except for THAT church!
Forbes should forget being SNP leader , the press will do what they did to Farron only worse and she can’t hide away from what her church thinks on certain issues .
She could probably learn a bit about how not to handle it from Farron, but I think in modern British politics it’s pretty difficult to pull this one off. I was very supportive of Farron for all the good liberal separation of personal conscience and policy reasons others have mentioned. But in the end it was impossible.
A shame in a way if it just sends all evangelical Christians into the arms of the political right, by default. Like in the US.
There is an out on that, unless somebody can confirm that it has changed.
The Equality Act 2010 permits discrimination in various circumstances. Particular occupations are exempt. and I think some services if they can justify it in terms of the act - BME housing associations, for example.
Sex discrimination is also permitted in political candidate selection, which is why All Women Shortlists are legal. That currently has a sunset clause for 2030, which was extended from the initial sunset clause.
It comes up occasionally, when couples try and exclude gay people from their housing, I recall one case where a couple wouldn't sell their house to a gay couple. Thought that was very strange and bigoted.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
I'd say Forbes' issue is political, rather than theological. Sturgeon has moulded the SNP as a party that by and large makes the case for independence as a more progressive Scotland being tied to an England that's more conservative and either votes Tory or for a Labour Party that has to concern itself with that and cut its cloth accordingly. Generally bunk of course - as both England and Scotland are much more complex and voters are much more fluid in their views. But incredibly useful bunk for the SNP as it broadens support for independence and gives it a purpose beyond nationalism or technocratic arguments. But it's difficult to see how a leader moves away from that without a schism or draining of support - which she'll have to, as while she may not roll back existing legislation, she won't be proposing anything she can't vote for herself and can't really make that pitch as someone who due to her religion has socially conservative views.
The SNP is an incredibly broad church, reaching from disaster capitalists at one end to to actual Marxists at the other. The one thing they have in common is the belief that Scotland should be an independent country. Nicola Sturgeon settled on a mildly communitarian semi-socialism because that's the Scottish political centre ground previously occupied by Labour.
Incidentally one of Sturgeon's successes is she is Mrs Middle Scotland. If SNP Central Casting had consulted ChatGPT for the ideal leader they would have come up with her. Kate Forbes not so much, but I don't think she will stray that far from the middle point.
Having said that, she's tying herself in knots on her personal morality. Could be a problem.
Yep, her inability to deal with stuff like this is more of a problem than her actual religious views imho.
It's the Tim Farron religion issue - an unwillingness to tell (white) lies means you end up creating a bigger and bigger mess...
And being a First Minister does require a degree of white lie telling in negotiations or matters of confidentiality, so it suggests unsuitability for the role.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Oh dear ! Her campaign is already unraveling . Given some of the strongest support for the SNP is younger people her views on certain issues are likely to go down like a bucket of sick !
SNP appear to be in a real bind.
Humza is an obvious stone-cold vote-loser. Kate is personable and plausible but her views seem impossible to square with the SNP's, and Sturgeon's, project of contrasting Scotland with England in terms of liberal social policies - and building a pro-indy alliance with the Greens. Robertson was the obvious solution but he's pulled out.
Tricky.
What will the SNP membership make of it?
More candidates still possible. Almost a week.
Maybe, but given all the big names have already said no, its not leaving many obvious ones to declare.
They can still change their minds. "The situation has developed unexpectedly and I am forced to ...".
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
As a member of a fundamentalist church she couldn't really say anything else. This is their position. The idea that her personal views in this can be separated from the political question is for the birds.
Why? I know nothing about her church, but I know loads of people who totally reject parts of the dogma of the religions they are members of, and indeed live lives in some ways go against the teaching too. What's the problem? She isn't, AFAIK, a minister in this church or anything
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Oh dear ! Her campaign is already unraveling . Given some of the strongest support for the SNP is younger people her views on certain issues are likely to go down like a bucket of sick !
SNP appear to be in a real bind.
Humza is an obvious stone-cold vote-loser. Kate is personable and plausible but her views seem impossible to square with the SNP's, and Sturgeon's, project of contrasting Scotland with England in terms of liberal social policies - and building a pro-indy alliance with the Greens. Robertson was the obvious solution but he's pulled out.
Tricky.
What will the SNP membership make of it?
More candidates still possible. Almost a week.
Nobody yet with a fish related surname. That’s what’s missing.
Not sure having an anti gay , anti abortion bible basher fits in with that .
They are a broad church.
Except for THAT church!
Forbes should forget being SNP leader , the press will do what they did to Farron only worse and she can’t hide away from what her church thinks on certain issues .
She could probably learn a bit about how not to handle it from Farron, but I think in modern British politics it’s pretty difficult to pull this one off. I was very supportive of Farron for all the good liberal separation of personal conscience and policy reasons others have mentioned. But in the end it was impossible.
A shame in a way if it just sends all evangelical Christians into the arms of the political right, by default. Like in the US.
I'm also uneasy about the way in which the FCS is being picked out whereas we don't see other religious strands of similar views attacked. The C of E, for instance, has not covered itself with glory, and it is actually formally connected to the state.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
As a member of a fundamentalist church she couldn't really say anything else. This is their position. The idea that her personal views in this can be separated from the political question is for the birds.
Why? I know nothing about her church, but I know loads of people who totally reject parts of the dogma of the religions they are members of, and indeed live lives in some ways go against the teaching too. What's the problem? She isn't, AFAIK, a minister in this church or anything
I had a bit of a look earlier. Couldn;t see anything about her being a lay preacher or even kirk elder.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Oh dear ! Her campaign is already unraveling . Given some of the strongest support for the SNP is younger people her views on certain issues are likely to go down like a bucket of sick !
SNP appear to be in a real bind.
Humza is an obvious stone-cold vote-loser. Kate is personable and plausible but her views seem impossible to square with the SNP's, and Sturgeon's, project of contrasting Scotland with England in terms of liberal social policies - and building a pro-indy alliance with the Greens. Robertson was the obvious solution but he's pulled out.
Tricky.
What will the SNP membership make of it?
More candidates still possible. Almost a week.
Nobody yet with a fish related surname. That’s what’s missing.
It'll sure be a pleasure not to have any so-called original witticisms along those lines ...
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
I'd say Forbes' issue is political, rather than theological. Sturgeon has moulded the SNP as a party that by and large makes the case for independence as a more progressive Scotland being tied to an England that's more conservative and either votes Tory or for a Labour Party that has to concern itself with that and cut its cloth accordingly. Generally bunk of course - as both England and Scotland are much more complex and voters are much more fluid in their views. But incredibly useful bunk for the SNP as it broadens support for independence and gives it a purpose beyond nationalism or technocratic arguments. But it's difficult to see how a leader moves away from that without a schism or draining of support - which she'll have to, as while she may not roll back existing legislation, she won't be proposing anything she can't vote for herself and can't really make that pitch as someone who due to her religion has socially conservative views.
The SNP is an incredibly broad church, reaching from disaster capitalists at one end to to actual Marxists at the other. The one thing they have in common is the belief that Scotland should be an independent country. Nicola Sturgeon settled on a mildly communitarian semi-socialism because that's the Scottish political centre ground previously occupied by Labour.
Incidentally one of Sturgeon's successes is she is Mrs Middle Scotland. If SNP Central Casting had consulted ChatGPT for the ideal leader they would have come up with her. Kate Forbes not so much, but I don't think she will stray that far from the middle point.
A broad church, yes. But it's rather like the Lib Dems, who similarly drew from across the spectrum, not necessarily with Farron - though that is often cited as a parallel - but after the coalition. They gained huge success by pitching themselves as Labour but cuddlier and without the contortions required to govern UK-wide or errors made in office. But collapsed when led in a different direction by someone who was recognisably liberal but very much not from that tradition as the progressive base they'd built up weren't having it and did not want to hear arguments that Orange Book types were just as valid a strain of what had voted for. Now, the same won't happen drastically to the SNP - I think independence is a more powerful binding agent than a broad belief in liberalism that requires strong political engagement to articulate. But you can certainly see them leaking votes as the progressive voters who hugely identified with Sturgeon and saw independence as a means rather than an end, no longer see an SNP led by someone whose personal views differ wildly on certain issues as the best vehicle for that.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Oh dear ! Her campaign is already unraveling . Given some of the strongest support for the SNP is younger people her views on certain issues are likely to go down like a bucket of sick !
What is wrong in having a conscience, if only mor epolitician's had principles. She is perfectly entitled to her opinion.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Gosh. Marks for honesty but it's still a bit of a shocker. Equal Marriage is totemic as proof of full acceptance of gay people into society. I must check the odds on Yousaf.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Gosh. Marks for honesty but it's still a bit of a shocker. Equal Marriage is totemic as proof of full acceptance of gay people into society. I must check the odds on Yousaf.
He might be a very happy genial chap behind the scenes but he always looks angry !
I can't say I've noticed that. He does seems to annoy the hell out of the right - which is ok by me. But does he have the political skills of Nicola Sturgeon? The clear betting fav now btw.
Forbes on BBC News - wouldn’t support GRR bill - so that’s just the male candidate supporting it…..
That's going to kick things of with the Greens, surely?
The GRR with the amendments to protect women's refuges, prisons etc on a some sensible basis would have the backing of all major parties and, I think, the public at large?
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
I'd say Forbes' issue is political, rather than theological. Sturgeon has moulded the SNP as a party that by and large makes the case for independence as a more progressive Scotland being tied to an England that's more conservative and either votes Tory or for a Labour Party that has to concern itself with that and cut its cloth accordingly. Generally bunk of course - as both England and Scotland are much more complex and voters are much more fluid in their views. But incredibly useful bunk for the SNP as it broadens support for independence and gives it a purpose beyond nationalism or technocratic arguments. But it's difficult to see how a leader moves away from that without a schism or draining of support - which she'll have to, as while she may not roll back existing legislation, she won't be proposing anything she can't vote for herself and can't really make that pitch as someone who due to her religion has socially conservative views.
The SNP is an incredibly broad church, reaching from disaster capitalists at one end to to actual Marxists at the other. The one thing they have in common is the belief that Scotland should be an independent country. Nicola Sturgeon settled on a mildly communitarian semi-socialism because that's the Scottish political centre ground previously occupied by Labour.
Incidentally one of Sturgeon's successes is she is Mrs Middle Scotland. If SNP Central Casting had consulted ChatGPT for the ideal leader they would have come up with her. Kate Forbes not so much, but I don't think she will stray that far from the middle point.
Having said that, she's tying herself in knots on her personal morality. Could be a problem.
Yep, her inability to deal with stuff like this is more of a problem than her actual religious views imho.
It's the Tim Farron religion issue - an unwillingness to tell (white) lies means you end up creating a bigger and bigger mess...
Honesty in a politician is refreshing , much better than your usual lying toerag
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Gosh. Marks for honesty but it's still a bit of a shocker. Equal Marriage is totemic as proof of full acceptance of gay people into society. I must check the odds on Yousaf.
If under 1000-1 don't take them.
I know you're not keen but he's surely not a no-hoper! We're talking even money last time I checked. Then again, Robertson was even money just the other day and he won't even be on the ballot.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
I'd say Forbes' issue is political, rather than theological. Sturgeon has moulded the SNP as a party that by and large makes the case for independence as a more progressive Scotland being tied to an England that's more conservative and either votes Tory or for a Labour Party that has to concern itself with that and cut its cloth accordingly. Generally bunk of course - as both England and Scotland are much more complex and voters are much more fluid in their views. But incredibly useful bunk for the SNP as it broadens support for independence and gives it a purpose beyond nationalism or technocratic arguments. But it's difficult to see how a leader moves away from that without a schism or draining of support - which she'll have to, as while she may not roll back existing legislation, she won't be proposing anything she can't vote for herself and can't really make that pitch as someone who due to her religion has socially conservative views.
The SNP is an incredibly broad church, reaching from disaster capitalists at one end to to actual Marxists at the other. The one thing they have in common is the belief that Scotland should be an independent country. Nicola Sturgeon settled on a mildly communitarian semi-socialism because that's the Scottish political centre ground previously occupied by Labour.
Incidentally one of Sturgeon's successes is she is Mrs Middle Scotland. If SNP Central Casting had consulted ChatGPT for the ideal leader they would have come up with her. Kate Forbes not so much, but I don't think she will stray that far from the middle point.
Having said that, she's tying herself in knots on her personal morality. Could be a problem.
Yep, her inability to deal with stuff like this is more of a problem than her actual religious views imho.
It's the Tim Farron religion issue - an unwillingness to tell (white) lies means you end up creating a bigger and bigger mess...
The correct answer as a church-going first minister and party leader to the question, "Do you support marriage between two men?" is "Yes. This is my party's policy and is allowed by the law." It's neither a white lie nor particularly difficult.
It may be a proxy question for, how will your beliefs affect your leadership? The answer to that question is essentially: My beliefs are an important part what I am. Others in my team have different beliefs or none, but we all respect each other and are all working together to deliver what is best for Scotland. Again, not difficult.
Off topic: A question for Anabobazina: Last week I saw an Arco service station with two prices for regular gasoline, $3.99 per gallon if you paid cash, and $4.09 per gallon if you paid with a debit or credit card.
Would Anabobazina's principles make them pay the higher price, or would they use cash in buying their gasoline from that station?
(There are similar penalties for using cards for small purchases, in other places in this area. They seem to be fairly common in small fast food places. And then, recently, I saw an up-scale store saying they woudl not accept cash. Some are worried that such policies would be hard on the very poor.)
Would pay by card at the higher price if I was so short of fuel that I had to use them. But the owner is clearly a moron, so I’d make a note to avoid his garage in future.
Comments
I tend towards the latter. If one of the purposes of marriage is to provide stability for kids, then the long-term commitment is the thing that matters.
Then we get into 'marriage' between more than two people, or even between people and other items, such as flint-knapped dildos ...
But clearly thinking somethings are immoral can be bigotry, whether those things are legal or not. Probably you'd agree that thinking "different races marrying is immoral" is bigotry?
Except for THAT church!
And while the two of them were enjoying the better sex, I could go to the pub.
Big moment.
https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1627715360215400449?s=20
Edit - as Angela Rayner told the Times “I don’t know what’s inside their head” wrt Isla Bryson (the convicted double rapist with prison onset gender dysphoria) - but self-ID relies entirely on “what’s inside their head”….
Humza is an obvious stone-cold vote-loser. Kate is personable and plausible but her views seem impossible to square with the SNP's, and Sturgeon's, project of contrasting Scotland with England in terms of liberal social policies - and building a pro-indy alliance with the Greens. Robertson was the obvious solution but he's pulled out.
Tricky.
What will the SNP membership make of it?
Your posts are fab BTW, I hope you will keep posting.
The Equality Act 2010 permits discrimination in various circumstances. Particular occupations are exempt. and I think some services if they can justify it in terms of the act - BME housing associations, for example.
Sex discrimination is also permitted in political candidate selection, which is why All Women Shortlists are legal. That currently has a sunset clause for 2030, which was extended from the initial sunset clause.
A shame in a way if it just sends all evangelical Christians into the arms of the political right, by default. Like in the US.
It may be a proxy question for, how will your beliefs affect your leadership? The answer to that question is essentially: My beliefs are an important part what I am. Others in my team have different beliefs or none, but we all respect each other and are all working together to deliver what is best for Scotland. Again, not difficult.