The Establishment Choice
The story goes that Humza Yousaf is the SNP leadership candidate of choice, and the endless endorsements from the top brass would confirm that, though I’m not sure he was their preferred or expected candidate. But the support for Kate Forbes among the wider British establishment and unionist media is quite remarkable. This morning Kaye Adams joined Nicky Campbell on BBC Five Live for a pan-UK radio show that asked: “Who is the best for Scotland?” The answer, remarkably, incredibly, included “Rishi Sunak” and “Sir Keir Starmer” as well as Ash Regan, Kate Forbes and Humza Yousaf, as this was a show broadcast for the whole of Britain. In the aftermath of the Gary Lineker debacle you might think that broadcasters might be careful about showing their own politics but there was no such qualms for Kaye who spent several attempts explaining that “Humza Yousaf is trying to paint Kate Forbes as socially conservative” (direct quote). You can listen here.
I mean, nobody has to ‘paint’ Forbes as ‘socially conservative’, but it’s remarkable that Adams was able to frame the debate like that, and incredible that the BBC thought it appropriate to take Five Live listeners on this journey.
Getting in on the act was John Boothman over at The Times with an extraordinary piece (‘Kate Forbes’s treatment ‘echoes expulsion of Margo MacDonald’) in which he quoted Alex Neil to argue that: “Kate Forbes is being driven out of the SNP by the party leadership in a mirror image of the “disgraceful” treatment of legendary nationalist Margo MacDonald”.
In a bizarre article Neil argues:
“The comparisons between Margo MacDonald and Kate Forbes are striking … Although they differ in many respects, one of their common denominators is the horrible way they have both been treated by the senior hierarchy of the SNP. In Margo’s case she was effectively driven out of the party when John Swinney was leader despite being the most able and popular of all in the SNP group. The way Kate has been treated over her personal beliefs has been just as disgraceful. It seems as though some people just can’t abide women stars of the independence movement. Those responsible have done a huge disservice to both the party and the cause of independence.”
“People just can’t abide women stars of the independence movement” is absolute drivel.
It’s certainly true that Margo MacDonald was treated very poorly by the SNP. But the comparison with Forbes, who is widely lauded and is a minister in an SNP cabinet is just weird. Boothman is joining the long list of establishment press who are backing Forbes. Chris Deerin over at the New Statesman has been waging a one-man campaign for Forbes for many months, Eddie Barnes, ex-Scotsman and SoS political journalist and Head of Strategy and Communications with the Scottish Conservatives has added his backing. Stephen Daisley over at The Spectator has also added his backing (‘Kate Forbes is the obvious successor to Nicola Sturgeon‘). Over at the Torygraph good ole Tom Harris chips in with a characteristically ridiculous ‘Ordinary Scots like Kate Forbes because they’re more liberal than the SNP‘). The Times Kenny Farquharson gushed after the SKY News debate: “Verdict: Kate wins: fluent and credible, already sounding like first minister.”
It’s a full house. The panopoly of Brit-commentors and editors all back Kate Forbes and sing with one voice on her merits and the terrible forces ranged against her.
But there’s an odd thing about John Boothman. Boothman used to be the head of news and current affairs at BBC Scotland but was moved out of that post in 2015 after losing a complaint from, wait for it, Margo MacDonald’s daughter. The Guardian reported back then:
“Boothman had lost a grievance complaint against him taken out by Zoe MacDonald, a BBC camerawoman and daughter of the late nationalist politician Margo MacDonald, after she recorded him being abusive about her and her mother in February.”
The Guardian reported that Boothman had had a private discussion about MacDonald and other BBC staff with a personnel executive, who has since left the BBC, in a broadcasting gallery at its Edinburgh studios without realising the microphones were live. MacDonald was eating lunch in the next gallery, and overheard their conversation, recording it on her mobile phone. Backed by colleagues and her stepfather (Jim Sillars), she made a formal complaint against Boothman.
As Neil Mackay lays out here (‘The BBC is an active foot soldier for the Tory culture war’), the BBC’s hypocrisy and blatant double-standards exposes their horrendous bias. As Mackay writes: “The BBC has become a mere extension of the Conservative Government. It’s been consumed”. He continues: “Just look at the issue of the BBC and free speech. The Tories are forever wailing about “woke” mobs silencing people. Yet, it’s the Tories who silence their critics, people like Gary Lineker, while remaining wilfully blind to their own supporters across the BBC flying the flag openly for Conservatives.”
The BBC is riddled with Tories, from their Tory donor chairman Richard Sharp to Alan Sugar, Karren Brady, Fiona Bruce, Jeremy Clarkson or the BBC director-general Tim Davie who was deputy chair of Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Party! So there is no surprise here at what we are witnessing but the long-term damage done to the idea of a public broadcaster is a complete disaster. Whether its Susan Deacon’s husband or the wrap-around of editors and scribes the decision is unanimous: Forbes is the establishment choice.
We are supported only by our readers. We don't have corporate backers and we don't take advertising, so we rely entirely on your support.
Help to support independent Scottish journalism
I think that Kate Forbes will do more for the cause of Scottish independence than the other 2 candidates. I hope that the SNP party members elect her.
Very little evidence for the above comment.
Deerin, Barnes, Daisley, Farquharson, Adams et al are supporting Forbes, NOT because it is good for independence but because it is good for them [unionists]
I don’t get a vote but if I did I’d plump for Yousaf
Kate is the sharpest tack in the drawer, in my opinion, Norm.
And I couldn’t care less what the assorted hacks say.
Kate is literally spouting the Liz Truss mantra of “grow the pie and everyone can get a bigger slice”.
She is an economic simpleton who thinks that poverty can be “eradicated” by economic growth.
She talks about “turbocharging” Scotlands economy in a devolved government. Anyone with half a brain knows this is patently ridiculous and entirely impossible with current powers. What are her ideas to do it though? Wait for it.. Not doing the deposit return scheme and not banning alcohol advertising. Such a sharp tack.
Honestly, the delusional nonsense about Kate being sharp and competent does my nut in. Everytime I listen to her I become more convinced she is a condescending air head.
“Everytime I listen to her I become more convinced she is a condescending air head.”
Could use that quote about Humza also.
His condescension being his use of transphobic language against Isla Bryson in BBC debate last night, while attempting to ringfence the debate against transphobia in Scotland by challenging section 35.
Why can he and Nicola Sturgeon do it without fear of prosecution, but ordinary citizens will be denigrated and potentially criminalised for the same thing?
She’s going to win, and you’ll have to give up your favourite passtime of calling non-nationalist social liberals “red Tories”. Diddums.
Literally never called anyone this but hey!
You’re stilling pushing this stuff? Apart from Regan, the one you dismiss, they are both the establishment choice. You say “The BBC is riddled with Tories…” So is the SNP and it should be – the Yes movement was meant to include ALL not just the sort you approve of. You say “The panopoly of Brit-commentors and editors all back Kate Forbes…” So what? Maybe she’s good, I don’t know. What these ‘commentors and editors think is not evidence of Kate Forbes unsuitability for the post and if that is not what you are inferring yell me what the article is about. This is just another attack on Late Forbes because you do not like her religious beliefs, grow up. Independence is about winning. You have to get away from this fantasy world you live in where some people’s nationalism isn’t as good as yours. If you want independence than you have to be able to ride with people you don’t like for one reason or another. The YES movement is not and should not be a politically correct group. It must include all those who want independence. And that includes any Tories or Labour who want to vote yes – it also includes Kate Forbes.
It appears that the SNP establishment is closing ranks to promote Humza to win. And it sounds as if Mike is arguing that the British establishment wants Kate to win. I want real democracy to win. And I want the dominance of the Scottish and British establishments to lose. The one is an unconscious (and sometimes also a conscious) reflection/reproduction of the other. I want a pluralist culture of all the people of Scotland to find and use their own voices, and listen to each others’ voices. With growing confidence. I hate the thought of Scotland becoming dominated by an SNP collectivism, just as much as much as I hated the arrogant and complacent Labour collectivism of the past. Dialogue. Difference. Finding common ground. Tolerating divergence. I will go for Kate first and Humza second. And I will challenge them to work and lead together. Let a hundred flowers bloom. Let a thousand schools of thought contend.
I was caught up in the hours of waiting for an ambulance . My husband saved my life by putting me in the car and driving to A&E….We were told that if he had not taken me I would have died …While in the hospital the stories of folk lying bleeding for hours on the floor ,others with fractured ribs and hips all waiting hours ….This situation had been ongoing for months prior to my experience ….Humza Yousaf was in post as this crises developed and he and his advisors must have known the realities of the ambulance service…Some of the public only found out when they dialled for an ambulance…..
I’m sorry for your troubles and distressed at the stories of patient’s suffering. There but for the Grace of God go us all.
However, the level of funding for Scotland’s NHS is proportional to whatever Westminster allocates to England’s NHS. No Scottish Health Minister can “fix” the NHS without Scotland becoming independent.
Jeremy Hunt (our current Chancellor) became the UK’s longest-serving Health Secretary in 2012. He slashed the usual, yearly NHS funding uplift of 6% to just 1%. That is a quarter of the amount recommended by the OBR. Scotland’s NHS funding levels followed suit. Our current chancellor deliberately set out to dismantle the NHS as we know it. He succeeded.
You can read about it here on Open Democracy:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/jeremy-hunt-tory-leadership-boris-johnson-nhs-junior-doctors/
“the level of funding for Scotland’s NHS is proportional to whatever Westminster allocates to England’s NHS. No Scottish Health Minister can “fix” the NHS without Scotland becoming independent.”
Rewrite as:
the level of funding for Scotland is proportional to whatever Westminster allocates to England. No Scottish First Minister can “fix” Scotland without Scotland becoming independent!
Only a fool or foe could blame Hamza for the problems with the NBS in Scotland. As is the case with devolution, full stop!
If given the choice today, I’d pause / reset the vote, open up the window for candidates, see NS throw her hat in and demand that our one and only objective is to secure independence as quickly as humanly possible!
The circus that has accompanied this vote is ridiculous, entryism(?), and those that have gone, farewell, the door is open and welcoming, it’s time we kicked it in!
I’d add, now is not the time to lose John Swinney, we need his steadying hand and the likes of Mike Russell more than ever!
Being rather stupid I have never understood the meaning of a number of words- spiritual- celtic etc but the one that has always fascinated me is establishment. I used to ask on line whether Nicola was part of the establishment- never had a single answer. Now I learn through this thread that the SNP establishment ( it gets even more confusing ) has a chosen candidate. Help me please. Who are the SNP estabishment? Spare me the generalizations, I need names. And while you are at it any definitions on spiritual and celtic would also be welcome.
Humans talk about ‘spirituality’ because we’ve fluked this thing we call ‘consciousness’, through evolution, and it makes us think we’re awfy special.
Indeed, so special that we’ve had to invent Gods and Religions to explain our ‘specialness’.
It’s not Forbes’ religious beliefs I take issue with (they’re nonsense) but the fact that
she’s so weak that she has to have religious beliefs at all.
SNP establishment; Peter Murrell would be a name that springs to mind, Maxwell. Y’know, Nicola’s husband.
Once asked a Buddhist monk what spiritual meant. He thought for some time and finally said ‘something that makes you truly happy’. The truly bit is crucial of course. I liked the answer.
As for the SNP what puzzles me about this article is that the SNP *are* the establishment, so the establishment choice is Humza, not Forbes. It seems hard for some to accept that is the case since they always want to be seen as in opposition to the establishment. But when you have been in power for 16 years and have control and deep influence across all major institutions in the country then you very much are the establishment.
As has been determined by researchers, the celts did no actually exist as an homogenous group but it is a useful vague term to describe most of the inhabitants across these islands at the time of the Roman invasion. Ironically, historians call such people the British or Romano-British as opposed to the ‘English’ (Anglo Saxons) who came a bit later. Once that invasion happened the ‘celts’ mostly moved west but many hung around where they were. Apart from the western isles I don’t think much of Scotland is any more Celtic DNA-wise than England these days (unlike Wales and Ireland).
An Irish friend once explained to me, “the English think in straight lines, but the Celts think in curved lines”.
We were drinking Guinness at the time, and it made perfect sense.
The SNP establishment candidate would be the one that Alba and WoS dislike most.
My working definition of Establishment is those people who, no matter how dim, useless to the common weal, venal, corrupt or incompetent, can always remain wealthy and connected to power.
Forbes supporters bemoan the fact that she is constantly being asked about her religious views. The reality is she keeps getting asked about her religious views because her answers are inadequate, and that’s precisely why she’s not good enough to be First Minister. This was the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that she had the ability to deal with a difficult issue the way Nicola Sturgeon can, and she’s come up short.
Forbes supporters also excuse her views by saying “well at least she’s being honest”, but even that’s not true. The reason she keeps getting asked is because her answers tend to be evasive and send alarm bells ringing. She says she backs a “balanced” approach to buffer zones, but refuses to explain what “balanced” actually means. She claims to back the ending of conversion therapy, but can’t help including the caveat that people should be allowed to “choose” to enter this horrible practice. When asked if she thinks a rape victim should be able to get an abortion – one of the most straightforward questions a politician could hope to be asked – she waffles on about how she “wouldn’t have an abortion myself, but…” instead of simply saying “yes”.
People are not stupid. We can tell when someone is being evasive so it’s quite clear what she really thinks about these issues. But she also knows that if she were to be genuinely honest, people would not like her answers, so she obfuscates instead – and not very well.
But none of that would matter if she was capable of putting her personal views aside when it comes to making political decisions, and a more skilled politician would be able to convey this effectively. However, she’s already proven that is not the case by saying she would have voted against equal marriage. That admission alone left her wide open to being questioned about all her social conservative beliefs.
Ultimately, you can be religious and be First Minister, but only if you do not let the two mix. I don’t know if she’s naive to think someone with those beliefs could be a modern day First Minister, or just arrogant in thinking her other abilities were so great that people would look past her beliefs. Either way, I hope she turns out to be wrong, because apart from anything else her disastrous campaign has shown her to be completely unfit for the job, and as others have said elsewhere, choosing her would really be a Liz Truss moment for the SNP.
Forbes supporters also excuse her views by saying “well at least she’s being honest”.
When I read that it reminded me of the Bunion cartoon in the Evening times. Bunion and his wife are at the racecourse, walking along the line of bookmakers to place a bet. The names on the boards read Honest Ken, Honest Dave, Honest Syd etc. In among them all there’s this one bookmaker whose board reads ‘Dishonest Joe’, to which Bunions wife exclaims “At least he’s honest”.
The continuing debate arising from MIke’s article about establishments (Scottish and English) is in my view very helpful, because it is encouraging people to come out as themselves and say what they think. I think the SNP membership needs to re-learn how to listen comfortably to a range of views, and feel again that that sort of dialogue is healthy and normal. The authoritarian control of people’s consciousness/language by the central elite is bad for democracy and therefore bad for Scotland’s people. How did we drift into this dangerous, paranoid culture? Since joining the SNP in 1981, I have always favoured pluralism and free discussion. I oppose collectivism. I have always regarded myself as a Scottish Internationalist. I believe in self-government, autonomy and relatedness. I am an outward looking nationalist, proud to be Scottish, Irish, European and a citizen of the whole world. And there is not an ounce of anti-English or anti-immigrant or anti-people of colour sentiment in my soul. The idea of separating from England and English people is simply unacceptable.
So what then do I see as the aim of the SNP? It is to break the Westminster system once and for all. What is the Westminster system? It is the centralisation of power in the elective dictatorship of the House of Commons, the unelected House of Lords, the centralised hierarchy of bureaucratic institutions, and underpinning all this the monarchy, with its ridiculous medieval claim to own the land, the people, the coast and the sea surrounding these islands. The monarchy recurrently asserts its right to hand out statuses like prince, duke, marquis, lord, lady, sir and so on. The monarchy thinks it has the right to anoint and crown a new king. What bizarre nonsense! How dare they? They must stand aside and accept the status of citizens.
I like Kate because she is honest and truthful. I like Humza because he is person of colour, a good guy and courageous enough to come out as a republican. I like Ash because she had the courage to resign her government post and oppose a silly policy which people had been bullied into supporting. I hate the attempt by the SNP’s central elite to manage and direct the SNP members’ consciousness/language, their view of progress, and actually, their very consciences. How on earth did we allow them to bring us to this point?
Ash Regan’s decision to quit government was not “courageous”. The Gender Recognition Reforms were supposed to happen in the previous parliament, but were delayed by Covid (or at least that was the excuse!) and it was promised that they would go ahead in the next parliament instead. Therefore, no SNP candidate in the 2021 election can pretend they did not know they were standing on a manifesto promising to reform the GRC process on the self ID model that is being adopted by an increasing number of countries, rather than the current, outdated medicalised model.
“Courageous” would have been standing as an independent (perhaps even taking the Margo route of standing on the list). If gender critical ideology was truly as popular as people like her say it is, then she would have easily been elected on the list. But as we saw with the Alba Party, most people don’t really care that much, even those who agree with them on the specific issue.
Instead, she stood on a manifesto commitment she had no intention of backing, and waited until the last possible moment before giving up her ministerial salary. There is no courage there. And throughout this whole leadership election, she has made it patently obvious that her true loyalty lies with her pals in the Alba Party. Will we see her “courageously” become Alba’s first MSP? Doubtful, because she knows it means her political career would end in 2026.
As for Forbes, if she were truly “honest and truthful”, she would come right out and say “I consider abortion to be the murder of an unborn child, and I am therefore against it in all scenarios” as it is clearly what she thinks. She has revealed enough about her socially conservative views to make it obvious why she struggles to give straightforward answers to the questions she keeps getting asked.
It feels as though this article is pushing Yousaf as the “progressive” candidate and condemning Forbes as being the chosen candidate of unionists. Perhaps, just perhaps, some unionists are thinking of who the best leader would be? For Scotland. It chills me to think I might be agreeing with Kaye Adams, a person who makes me change channels when she comes up on the radio, but perhaps she can see Forbes’s clear leadership potential. It will appeal also to Adams’ distaste for the SNP that the party openly wants Yousaf to win.
Here’s another thought: There is great advantage for the Independence cause to elect a leader who may not be popular with party activists and the payroll vote, but who commands a clear lead with ordinary voters, some of whom we hope to convert to the cause of independence.
Yousaf reminds me of the second raters Scottish Labour used to produce and still does. He does not give any indications of being able to think for himself or even to do a supporting job competently. Forbes on the other hand can think and speak incisively. Her biblical attitudes do give me cause for hesitation but there are plenty of people here in the NW Highlands with that background who behave like decent human beings.
So what do you think of her readiness to ditch the Bute House agreement?
What a bright idea. Ditch the Greens for nae-mates Alba !
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE BIAS WATCH
Independence related articles on MSN since referendum date announced
Anti-Neutral-Pro = 329-13-11
Yet, despite the anti-independence onslaught, NS’s resignation, the leadership battle, Sunak’s ‘The Man Who Shot Liberty Johnson’ Protocol bounce, a yoon commissioned poll only puts YES as low as 46%. We have no reason to feel despondent aside from the lack of ideas from our own side.
I repeat, the Scottish govt should stick with the previously arranged independence referendum date.
If the yoons organise a boycott, the Scottish govt should state that the referendum will go ahead anyway, and if the YES vote amounts to what would’ve been a majority in the 2014 referendum then it’s assumed that independence is the wish of the Scottish people.
If the yoons continue to advise a boycott that means they won’t be campaigning, which in turn makes it easier to achieve the equivalent of that 2014 majority.
If you were Douglas Ross, what would you recommend?
Having watched several of the hustings and TV debates, I struggle to find anything progressive about Kate Forbes attitudes to the economy, public services, or political alliances.
Whenever the wellbeing economy comes up, she always talks about growth rather than redistribution. When asked about progressive taxation, she says she supports it “in present circumstances” not in principle. Her approach to the green transition seems devoid of any urgency lest this upsets the business community. When challenged on this, for example on the DRS, she takes cover behind “small businesses” and sidesteps any reference to multinationals.
Similarly, whenever issues relating to public services come up, she responds by emphasizing getting resources to the front line rather than “wasting them” on management. The other night she was nodding in approval as a member of the audience ran down the NHS for its “inefficiency”. Her policy on teaching is all about giving resources to the teachers, never about inequality.
And very clearly, as far as she is concerned, the Bute House agreement with the Scottish Greens is expendable. Quite how she plans to build a progressive alliance for independence on that basis escapes me.
So, apart from her support for independence, what exactly is it that sets her apart from what was once the Conservative Party mainstream?
Mike Small writes as though there is only one, right wing, Establishment. In fact, there are any number of ‘establishments.’ In a post on Bella Caledonia two days ago, I referred to a ‘Holyrood establishment.’
Mike Small points out, accurately, that there are unionists supporting Kate Forbes. However, some of them accept that a victory for Kate Forbes might further undermine the Union. Other supporters of Kate Forbes include Stuart Campbell and James Kelly, two individuals more often at daggers drawn. Also, Robin McAlpine and Alex Bell, by no stretch of the imagination on the right or pro-union.
What these diverse individuals share is a belief that Nicola Sturgeon’s government was sunk in mediocrity. When a senior SNP minister agrees with them, they – not surprisingly – warm to her. Further, they believe that a victory for Humza Yousef would guarantee that this mediocrity continued, to the detriment of the Scottish people. The available evidence suggests that the voters are closer to Kate Forbes than to
Humza Yousef.
Of course, SNP members may decide they know best, as Labour members did with Jeremy Corbyn and Tory members did with Liz Truss.
I would have thought Governor-General Jack would be more to Campbell’s political taste these days.
Campbell is in fact supporting Regan, not Forbes. He is more sympathetic to Forbes than Humza but not by much.
I thought that Wings and James Kelly had both indicated separately that Ash Regan was their preferred candidate, with Kate Forbes second and Humza Yousaf never?
Very simple: If the Tories are trying to destroy her they believe she is good for Scotland and Independence.
Still no definition of establishment. T’was ever thus.
Spiritually yours in the celtic twilight,
MM
What’s your objection to the term?
If you have to ask, you are in it.
I see Establishment as “scaleable” too. At the top end, you can be a well-kent child molester and still dine with Royalty and avoid imprisonment. At the lower end you can pochle the raffle and still not get flung out of the social club because you are “in with bricks”.
Mean to pose my first sentence (above) as a question. “If you have to ask, perhaps you are in it?”
Sorry to sound mean Maxwell. I appreciate your contributions here. I’m too grumpy on-line sometimes.
Ach, a wee bit grumpiness never hurt anyone, Wul, and I’m sure that Maxwell can handle it.
Incidentally, I was quite glad to hear that Peter Murrell is now leaving. He was a bit too established in there. Time for a shake up and some fresh energy.
I am surprisingly optimistic for the coming months and years in Scotland.
Might even make the move back to Scotland for good. No place like home!
Spirituality originated from various incongruous experiences that somehow enlarged our sense of reality beyond the immediate banality of the everyday. An innate sense of spirituality beyond experience is the ineffable facticity of simply being; how cosmically strange that we exist at all and even stranger that we are aware of our existence and simultaneously conscious of its radical strangeness. The cosmos itself may only be an infinite process of dizziness and spirituality a full conscious awareness that we are merely dizziness ourselves? Consciousness since the time of Kant, German Romanticism, onto the proto-existentialism of Kierkegaard has been understood as an absolute form of subjectivity- absolute in the sense that it is an externally inaccessible interiorisation that cannot be defined like objects of sense, either measurably, directly observed by others or intellectually reduced to simple and easily defined components- this ineffable subjectivity that characterises being is so exotically sublime, so radically strange, and so intensely unique to the person, it clearly inspires a state many people term ‘spiritual’- what is more, the endurance of this state, analogously culminates in a vivid sense of understanding one might term ‘wisdom’ and the associated manifestation of compassion/ indeed, the manifestation of these twin virtues, is evidential of the presence of the authentically spiritual, occasionally accompanied by a deep sense of humour, and is more or less as far from a fluke as is possible to imagine…