On Kate Forbes Departure
The news that Kate Forbes is not standing in 2026 will have a clutch of Unionist fans in mourning.
Forbes posted saying: “After careful thought over recess, I’ve decided not to seek re-election next year. I’ve written to the First Minister this morning I will continue to serve the First Minister, the Government and my constituents to the best of my ability until May 2026.”
She has posted a letter to the FM explaining the background to her thinking:
Her resignation will no doubt spawn a flood of valedictory columns about her passing, mostly from those who were drawn to her cultural and fiscal conservatism and wanted desperately for her to take the reigns and beckon in a more right-wing SNP government into office. This is the brigade of Unionist columnists and editors who dominate Scottish commentary and go into seizure at the thought of anything beyond the economic orthodoxy, and hate the idea of Holyrood taking a different path from Westminster on anything at all. For them, Kate Forbes was the Great White Hope. If they despised devolution and were in existential fear at the thought of independence, Forbes could be a solution, a Holyrood parliament run by a leader they could depend on.
In one of many articles about Forbes Chris Deerin [Kate Forbes is the SNP’s best hope] celebrated her “nimble intellect, political courage and impressive competence” and argued in 2022 [Will Kate Forbes be Scotland’s next leader?] : “It’s an open secret that Kate Forbes is the rising power in the land, the Erling Haaland of Holyrood, a prodigy of extravagant gifts and appeal. At 31, she is already powerful: as the SNP’s Economy and Finance Secretary, the devolved equivalent of chancellor, she controls an annual budget of £41bn. Sturgeon sees Forbes as her most likely successor, perhaps in time for the next Scottish parliament election in 2026.”
During the election campaign for leader in 2023, Deerin got the better for himself and exclaimed: “A bright, young cabinet minister and new mother, has been thrown to the wolves by her elders.”
Back in 2023 I noted the remarkably well-coordinated support for Kate Forbes for leadership [The Establishment Choice]:
“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.”
This phalanx of Orphaned Centrists championed Forbes’ cultural conservatism in the war against progressive Scotland, which they loathe with all their beings. Her position of being against equal marriage, abortion and woman church ministers, and her view that having children outside of marriage was “wrong” according to her faith as a member of the Free Church of Scotland.was celebrated not because they championed these causes but because they wanted to weaponize these issues against any idea of a progressive Scotland. Forbes was a bulwark against difference, and difference was and is an anathema to these men. Fealty and conformity to a British set of ideals is the aim and purpose of most of their output.
Forbes departure also raises questions about the issue of parenting and work-life balance. In her letter to John Swinney, Forbes said: “Looking ahead to the future, I do not want to miss any more of the precious early years of family life – which can never be rewound.”
But on a political level, it also clears the ground for a future leadership race within the SNP. Some have suggested the next contest will be between Stephen Flynn and Màiri McAllan, while others say it depends on the success of the challenge by those around Alyn Smith to John Swinney’s independence plan [‘SNP members set for second meeting to challenge Scottish independence plan | The National‘].
The reality is that Forbes cultural conservatism raised significant questions about what kind of Scotland we want to live in and create in 2025. She was championed by regressive reactionary voices who wanted to weaponize her views against a progressive future and re-frame Scottish politics.
So speaking Gaelic and being Christian is regressive? Thank heavens we have Plaid Cymru and not the SNP in Wales.
Where did anyone mention Gaelic?
Perhaps try reading the article and then pause for thought before commenting.
Do try to keep up.
It’s not being Christian that’s regressive. The problem is that Kate Forbes is a follower of an extremist sect of Christian fundamentalism. She opposes both same sex marriage and gender recognition reform and has insisted that she would have voted against both.
LGBT Scots need leaders who actively champion their right to live their lives with legal support, but Kate Forbes is on the other side.
Sorry Claire, but comments like yours are part of the problem. They read as completely Illiberal and quite aggressively patronising.
“Do try to keep up” ?
The problem is not that Kate Forbes is ‘a follower of an extremist sect of Christian fundamentalism’. The Free Church is not for me, but who are you to call her views extremist? So what if she ‘opposes both same sex marriage and gender recognition reform and has insisted that she would have voted against both’ ? So you disagree with her, what about her right to live the life she wants to without being attacked by you?
It looks pretty intolerant to me. For what its worth I do not agree that ‘LGBT Scots need leaders who actively champion their right to live their lives with legal support’, or that Kate Forbes was a threat to anyone who disagreed with her.
John, that is a bizarre response. Kate Forbes takes a political stance which I profoundly oppose, because it denies people the freedom to live their lives to the full. I therefore do not want her to hold public office, and I express that view.
This is basic democracy. You seem to have a big problem with democratic debate.
No I do not have a problem with democratic debate, only your approach to it, Claire.
I think it’s fundamentally illiberal to say to someone else that they have no right to live like that.
And that’s the difference between Kate Forbes and the one commenting. No one is trying to stop Kate Forbes from marrying the person of her choice, or identifying as herself.
No one is suggesting Kate’s rights be limited.
Was Kate Forbes trying to limit anyone’s rights? I think not.
Well, I disagree with you.
I think Kate has a s much right to her views as you do yours. I don’t think she tried to deny anyone’s rights
So saying she would oppose same sex marriage isn’t denying anyone’s rights?
That’s an interesting view. The LGBTQIA+ folk I know would say it absolutely is denying their rights.
Well it all depends on what you and anyone else see as ‘rights’. And in this case, by ‘marriage’. It is all in the definitions of words.
I am not arguing Kate’s case for her. If she opposes same sex marriage let her explain why. Equally if others wish to argue a different case, let them. Then we can all make up our own minds.
What actually adds to someone’s suffering, and what reduces it? And does relieving your suffering have to come at the cost of increasing someone else’s? How do we make ethical choices? It’s ben a question for thousands of years
It has very little to do with her religion and a whole lot to do with the doctrine of her church of choice.
What about your doctrine, whatever that is? I don’t agree with her neoliberalism at all, nor do I carry any torch for her church, but she is as entitled to believe what she does as anyone else.
Of course she is entitled to her beliefs. Nobody is trying to deny her the right to hold and express her beliefs.
If she doesn’t want to have a same sex relationship, that’s her private business. If she doesn’t want to have a legal change of gender, that’s also her private business. Those are her personal choices.
Similarly, if Forbes doesnt approve of other people having a same sex marriage of change of gender, that’s her private matter. She is entitled to her beliefs.
But the problem with Forbes is that these personal beliefs drive her political stance. That’s the point where they become grounds for political opposition.
Kate Forbes has been very clear that she would use her political office to vote against same sex marriage and gender recognition. She wants to deny others the right to make different choices. She wants to impose her religious beliefs on others.
Plenty of people do not want people in public office who impose their religious beliefs on others. That’s normal democratic politics: we vote for people whose policies we share, and oppose those whose policies we dislike.
It’s strange to watch people who think that it’s somehow improper to oppose politicians whose policies we deplore.
So Kate wants to impose her beliefs on others, but you don’t? If you were a politician would you vote against your own views? Surely you are both entitled to argue your cases, and after a public debate, some sort of consensus should emerge? If you are so sure of you own views, why object to anyone who disagrees with you? Disagreement is not abuse.
She’s a nationalist and that’s all that matters. I’d rather vote for a conservative nationalist than an unionist socialist.
I’d sooner vote for a conservative nationalist than a socialist unionist. That’s what the SNP and Plaid Cymru should remember.
John, you are missing the point. Kate Forbes wants LGBT people to have fewer rights. Nobody wants Kate Forbes to have fewer rights.
Disagreement is not abuse. And it is not abuse to demand that people with extremist views which would harm others do not hold senior public office. A big part of democracy is the opportunity to remove from public office people with values you oppose, and cheering the exit of Kate Forbes’s repugnant political values is part of that.
I thought ‘Lighthouse’ mhairi black was a stretch, but continuing with KF’s ‘repugnant political values’ takes the biscuit-as has been mentioned by several(majority) on this thread, your Savonarola of the lgbt lobby thing does nothing for tolerance or the original topic- John nailed it!
1) Her perceived social conservatism was certainly irrelevant to me, and refreshing, in a woke-gripped assembly.
2) Her neo-liberalism, freeports sign-off etc.etc was always a complete turnoff- the opposite approach to what we want from a post-Indy Scotland.
3) That commentariat rogues-list of anti- Independence chancers reminds us of how stacked the MSM game is!
A “woke-gripped assembly”. Hogwash.
Overwhelming vote for self-id(nonsense) all parties – Nuffield said. The same collective fear that operates in NHS Fife- ‘be kind, ken?’
So you think that “being kind” is a problem. Thanks for clarifying that.
‘Being kind’ groupthink is self-evidently a problem in circumstances such as NHS Fife- I’d rather trust crowd- wisdom than the preening,self righteous crew, protecting their jobs/positions/ pensions who gave evidence pro-Fife/Upton.
You dislike being kind because you support discriminatory exclusion at the demand of a racist. And that leads you to denounce all kindness.
Thanks again, Hugh, for clarifying who you are.
Discriminatory exclusion at the hands of a racist? Is that ‘being kind?’ or just the ranting of a parti-pris heid banger? I don’t agree with your opinions/assertions, as you obviously don’t with mine- so what? That’s X!
It is wise to be sceptical of those who self-identify as kind.
So, Hugh’s idea of discussion is to call the other person a heid-banger.
Thanks again, Hugh, for clarifying who you are.
Eejit, if you prefer? I sniff Sturgeonista groupie in your comments, and as I said, we’ll never agree, as my stance is keep sex out of politics, + definitely not the rainbow lanyard alphabet soup guff, which is so out of kilter with the average voter,it fosters resentment due to its over aggressive promotion of minority interests..Anyway what’s this got to do with KF+ the SNP?
You have to love how folk live in their own wee bubble of media, family, friends and workplace, and think that’s the ‘average voter’ – the best way to find out what the average voter is, is to actually go knock on doors and campaign on their doorsteps.
You might be quite surprised. Especially at how few voters actually care much for what’s in someone’s pants, or which toilet they use. Funny, it’s usually men of a certain age busy ‘protecting women’ who never asked to be protected, except in many cases, those same men.
Unless your heading for 77, like me, I doubt you win on lifelong doors knocked,Doug- s’thing I gave up when the SNP gave up Independence for Sturgeons other interests- do you really think the’average voter’ was indifferent to self- ID? The path chosen was mad- and my point about the Parliament was it was shared across the chamber- Unionist Brit-parties, SNP, Independents- virtue-signalling show- offers!
The average voters isn’t 77, and self-id works perfectly well in other European countries, like Ireland. It’s not what people claim it is, you can’t just wake up one morning and get a GRC on a whim.
The biggest threat to women isn’t trans in women’s spaces, its men in every space.
Which is why I find it really interesting that the loudest defenders of women’s spaces are almost always men.
So, Hugh’s idea of discussion is to call the other person a “heid-banger”, and “eejit” and a “Sturgeonista groupie”. With Hugh, its all just name-caling.
Thanks again, Hugh, for clarifying who you are.
I voted for her in the leadership contest against my better judgment, because like her i live in Highland Scotland and can speak Gaelic. Unlike her i am RC and have lived 35 years in a monogamous same sex marriage. I think i am progressive and up for a modern inclusive Scotland. pleased she decided to stand down. I agree with your article btw
This a huge setback for Taliban For independence.
I try to do as much ‘homework’ and analysis as possible, I weigh-up the whys and wherefores, I read, look and listen…then I give my instinct a chance.
In politics and public life, Kate Forbes gave me the heeby-jeebies.
I wish her well with her family.
I am not knowledgeable enough on the political hinterland of those that currently represent the SNP to be able to argue one way or the other. But. John Swinney is a safepair of hands but he will never lead us to independence and I cannot see anyone else with the chutspah to really make a difference. I liked Kate Forbes honesty and conviction but she would not have been able to bring the independence campaign together to make enough difference.
We have done little or nothing that is truly radical since Alec salmond resigned as First Minister and we really, really need somebody at the helm to inspire and motivate. Is Stephen Flynn that man? Don’t know. Mhari Black, has done with Westminster, will she try a turn at Holyrood? I could listen to her all day and think she could be the inspirational leader we need but fear she might be too easily sabotaged by the forces of unionism.
I await whatever events that might come along to get us where we need to be.
Mhairi Black stood down as MP, and she has quit the SNP. She still has a lot of articulate insights about politics, but has had enough of both Westminster and the SNP.
It’s possible that she might find another political vehicle, and I imagine that the Greens would welcome her. But but but.
Despite her huge talents, Mhairi Black found politics personally difficult, and has been diagnosed as ADHD. That suggests that Holyrood would also be uncomfortable for her.
Joanna Cherry’s former parliamentary assistant Fraser Thompson was clearly on the opposite side of the bitter debates over trans rights. But I was struck by his comments on the Lesley Riddoch podcast about Mhairi leaving the SNP. His view was that Mhairi made some fine speeches and got a lot of attention for them, but that they were rare. The rest of the time, said Faser, Mhairi wasn’t there doing the work. That rang true for me, and my revulsion at Cherry’s transphobia doesn’t make me discount it.
Revulsion at Cherry’s transphobia? Are people still peddling the lie that anyone who thinks the definition of a woman is an adult human female is a transphobe? The law has said again and again it this slur (and several others) that is out of step with reality, and indeed the law itslef when someone is discriminated against for saying so, not to forget the vast majority of people on this Earth.
Wrong about the law. The Gender Recognition Act is still law. The GRA recognises legal change of sex.
As to transphobia, opposing the identity of trans orople is the core of transohibia.
So stop trying to have it both ways. If you oppose recognising change-over sex, you are an taking a transohobic stance.
@Claire McNab, and what do trans people believe about trans identity and sex?
That is irrelevant. Trans people, who make up a very small minority, have the right to a life free from persecution and prejudice, and such a question has nothing to do with Kate Forbes resignation. Her views however make some of us very uncomfortable about her high profile role in the SNP, where as Nocila Sturgeon’s more compassionate and inclusive views imo made her very popular with a lot of non nationalists.
@Andrew Wilson, what else, apart from some belief, makes someone Christian? What else, apart from some belief, makes someone trans?
Well i am not trans, but i am Gay and Christian, behaviour is imo far mare important than a statement of faith. “ a new commandment i give unto thee that ye love one another as i have loved you, by this shall all men know you are my disciples “. Thats my favourite saying of JC and i guess trans people do not feel right in their body or how they are expected to behave. So they should not be forced to be otherwise, and not be the victims of prejudice snd judgement, much of which sounds like recycled homophobia
@Andrew Wilson, you are making the helpful distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, yet I don’t expect Wikipedia’s statement to be controversial:
“Although traditionally Christianity is seen as primarily orthodoxical…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthopraxy
The common philosophical view is that we cannot tell directly or indirectly what people believe, but we can measure profession of beliefs against actions. Those who claim to know what other people really believe must therefore expect to face some scepticism, especially if they claim to speak for them and their inner states, and moreso if they are clearly attempting to police the ‘right thinking’ of their identified group (watch particularly for the treatment and behaviour of apostates).
What we can detect is a wide variety of professed beliefs and noted behaviours of Christians and trans people, and overlaps with other ideologies, patterns of personal histories, influences and subcultures. And because of the nature of alliances in electoral politics, we see the kinds of adaptations required for achieving goals. For example, as Christianity becomes a minority religion, its proponents may tend to seek support from other religious groups (just as when Anglicanism lost its hegemonic state, Anglicans pursued outreach to other Christian sects) despite conflicts of belief or interests.
But you have revealed a belief that you say is a cornerstone of your faith. Obviously beliefs can influence behaviour. And yours seems fairly orthodox to me (despite the mad variants of Christianity that flourish across the world).
You also seem unaware that researchers have found that
“Homophobia or difficulty accepting themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual was expressed by 23.0% as a reason for transition and subsequent detransition.” (Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, ‘Cass Review’)
So trans identity was found to be in frequent conflict with, and opposition, to lesbian, gay or bisexual identity.
“Internalised and socially realised transphobia, homophobia and misogyny especially concerned young adults.”
Thanks Claire. I have a different view on sex and gender and you call me and the millions like me, a transphobe i.e. a prejudiced bigot against trans people. ‘Be kind’ you say, but only to those who agree with you. The real mark of kindness is doing the opposite – being kind to those with whom you don’t agree because compassion is not predicated on political viewpoints beyond the real extremes. It is quite telling that quite a lot trans-activism is so marked by the very opposite of kindness.
Yes the law allows a change of sex but unless you have been on another planet recently, it was recently concluded by the UK Supreme Court that when the term “woman” is used in the Equality Act it means a biological woman, and “sex” means biological sex. Are all those who agree with that all transphobes as well?
Sorry, but this is nonsense. As far as I am concerned, ‘gender’ is a biological characteristic, not a personal choice or capable of being ‘assigned’ by some all-powerful authority. I would say the same about sexual orientation.
This does not make me ‘trans-phobic’ in the slightest. I accept that there are people who for whatever reason cannot accept the gender they were born into. They have an absolute right to be open about that, and where people are suffering I only want to understand and help if I can.
They do not have a right to force me to agree with them or to cancel or be hostile or call me a ‘bigot’ or a ‘transphobe’ or other hateful things, or to deny others their biological sex identity. I have found that it is in practice impossible to even ask questions about the ‘trans-gender’ phenomenon without being viciously attacked. I knew people who were quietly gender non-conforming long ago . They were not victimised. They were accepted for themselves. When this first came up as a political issue I was a Green Party member, activist, local office holder. I made the mistake of asking about this to try o understand it better, on an internal messaging system. Instead of any engagement I was faced with a deluge of mindless hatred. I then found myself expelled from the party by email. No discussion, or due process of any kind. Later I was invited to re-join on condition I accepted the party’s position on self-identification.
That was simply fascist, or if you prefer, Stalinist. It matters little.
Having looked into this since I think that those with gender-related issues are the victims of a very nasty campaign of psychological warfare. It has a close relationship with the billionaire trans-humanists and the technocratic, so-called ‘4th Industrial Revolution’ that seeks to contol biology with technology; it creates demand for products and services – and of course dependency of on them; it divides and rules us; and not least it enables filthy polluting corporations to avoid responsibility for flooding the environment with hormones. let no-one try to sue them for that.
That’s just my view. But it doesn’t make me trans-phobic at all. On previous experience I expect a piling in of hateful responses to me. I hope I am wrong about that.
@John Wood, I agree that your point makes sense:
“it enables filthy polluting corporations to avoid responsibility for flooding the environment with hormones. let no-one try to sue them for that.”
See the Chem Trust for more information:
https://chemtrust.org/endocrine-system/
If these are not legally recognised as birth defects…
We need to talk about Blinky (the three-eyed fish in the Simpsons caused by pollution from Mr Burns nuclear plant that he wants to pass off as the next stage in evolution).
John Wood, you align yourself with the scientifically illiterate notion of human sex as a fixed binary, and you refer to it as “biological sex”. The biological reality is much more complicated: Human sex is not binary. Start with https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/ … and if you want more, I have long lists of links for you.
You want to deny the right of trans people to be legally recognised in the gender we live our lives. You are entitled to your view, but you are not exited to deny others the right to describe your hardline opposition as transphobia.
Are you suggesting that the ‘explanation’ for transness can be found in this idea that sex is not essentially binary (even the article says when it comes to reproduction, binary sex differences really do matter and sex differences in general do)? In other words, trans people all occupy some kind of specific biological state(s)? This would be provable would it not, so why not have the test? That sounds facetious but I am really struggling to understand what an article about gamete complexity in the animal kingdom can tell us about human behaviour and trans.
Is you insistence that the sex is not binary because it allows for a biological explanation for trans?
Aye, that comment sounds typical of Fraser Thompson and the office culture he and Cherry oversaw.
Westminster & Unionist media were frightened of Alex Salmond & Nicola Sturgeon because they were strong, articulate proponents of independence. I don’t see the same fear of John Swinney, Humza Yousef or Kate Forbes.
The next SNP leader needs to be articulate and combative but able to reach out to and work with wider independence movement and have respect of broader Scottish society. From my observations the only SNP politician I currently see that potentially has these qualities is Stephen Flynn and I do think he is feared by opponents. Whoever ends up following John Swinney will also need a strong, competent team to support them as we have seen how opponents of independence will target any leader they perceive as a threat to the Union.
John Swinney is not targetted as he is seen as little threat to the union. Salmond and Sturgeon both went from liked and respected to objects of hatred due to constant negative personal propaganda against them from unionist media. I used to go round canvassing and was astonished by the number of people that told me they wanted independence but couldn’t stand either Alec Salmond or Nicols Sturgeon, depending on how long the monstering had gone on.
Dougie – and they will follow the same tactics with any leader who is high profile and perceived as a threat to the Union. This is why the new leader has to be articulate and combative and have strong support from colleagues from SNP and wider independence to help support them against the inevitable onslaught that will come their way.
Mhairi Black was a huge disappointment, has been reported as very lazy, then basically gave up, conveniently blaming the ‘system’. What did she have? One speech that said nothing new, though she said it well.
That’s harsh, Niemand. But sadly, I have to agree.
I have always find Mhairi Black to be a very engaging, articulate exponent of values I share. A lighthouse, as she set out to be, whose light has several times caught the moment brilliantly.
However, an effective politician needs to be more than the maker of occasional brilliant speeches. The job is tough, requiring a lot of hard graft, with long hours out of the limelight doing the hard graft of helping huge numbers of constituents and building consensus with colleagues who may not be starting from the same place. Mhairi Black has not been good at those other parts of the job.
She has huge talent, and truly I wish her very well. But I thing that her decision to leave party politics has been the right one.
The idea that Mhairi Black was a lighthouse, rather than a huge disappointment a la Sturgeon, is so niche as to be risible- you’re a fan of her faux, over-gallus-accented schtick(I read recently her maiden speech was written by Alex)- and I rejoiced over her removal of half of the Alexander grifters, but again, other than the sexual politics stuff, there was no heft, weight, substance…
As usual, Hugh McShane replies with a string of personal insults.
Thanks againnfor showing us who you are, Hugh.
‘Who are ya?’ is more a football- yob thing- Claire- your intolerant yobbery does nothing for this topic.
I fundamentally disagree with Kate Forbes on a range of issues, but I agree 100% that the life of an MSP or MP, especially one with ministerial responsibilities and a geographically huge constituency is inimical to family life.
Add the constant travel, the long hours, the intense abuse, the loss of privacy, the very real safety threats, and battling against media hatred, I’m amazed anyone would want the role.
Jim Hunter opens his book The Last of the Free by relaying a comment by a crofter something like, ‘ in London they don’t care what happens here, but in Edinburgh they hate us’.
Unfortunately the SNP leadership contest was rigged to divide and rule Scotland. An urban, Central Belt, ‘left wing’ candidate was set up against a rural, more traditional Highlander. Underneath their apparent differences both candidates were clearly approved by the billionaires who really pull Scotland’s (and the UK’s) strings. As always they played both sides. Whoever won, we would still have had NPF4, the ‘freeports’, the ‘smart’ cities, the start of a new round of highland depopulation, including destruction by the NC500 and ‘Scotland as a theme park for the entitled’ tourism, the surveillance ‘capitalism’ in which only the super rich are ‘stakeholders’, the unlimited, unregulated coercive roll-out of massive, unnecessary electricity generation, storage and deliver to England at our expense. The party would be left looking rudderless and chaotic. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ candidates were then supposedly reconciled by the introduction of Swinney’s ‘safe’ pair of administrative hands that would upset nobody (but equally please nobody either). Meanwhile the billionaires’ totalitarian agenda continues. The Scottish Government just does as it’s told. Like Starmer. Like Sunak. We need independence, not just from Westminster, but even more so from the World Economic Forum (and its friends).
Although I disagree with the content of the article, I have to agree about Kate Forbes’ honesty and genuineness. I think she was young, idealistic, and naive, but genuine – unlike so many other politicians looking for power for its own sake, at any cost. At least she seems to genuinely believe in something. It’s a rare quality these days. I don’t think calling people ;’conservatives’, ‘centrists’ or ‘progressives’ has any value at all anymore. Words are losing their meaning. It’s Newspeak.
In her case, I think she came to see that the neoliberal economic policies she felt she had to sign up to (she said the freeports were ‘the only show in town’) are utterly disastrous for the highlands and islands; and that this has made her, and the SNP as a whole, so unpopular in the Highlands that she was very, very unlikely to keep her seat next year. Last year, two established and respected SNP politicians lost to the amalgamation of their constituencies (reducing highland representation) and a (heavily promoted) LibDem who promised to stand up for us, ‘where it matters’ – in Westminster.
And now, with the expected arrival of a new Corbyn / Sultana party, I can easily see this persuading a lot of people, in the Highlands at least, that that they might be ‘better together’ with them.
Anyway, I applaud Kate Forbes for standing down. There’s a lot of anger here against the SNP’s perceived betrayal. Agree with them all or not, it’s refreshing to see a politician with some actual beliefs rather than just a lust for power at any price. Scotland needs to wake up and address the fact that it contains many communities.
The Gaidhealtachd is to Scotland in a similar relation to Wales and England. It needs its its culture, its language and a long history of betrayal, colonisation and worse, to be respected. How about a parliament for the Lordship of the Isles?
Centralised, authoritarian, colonial rule, whether direct from Westminster or via a sort of puppet regime in Edinburgh, cannot provide a basis for a successful independent state. This is why there will be no independent Scotland unless it is decentralised and able to accommodate a variety of different views and perspectives. A truly independent Scotland would recognise that it has always been a country of regions. After hundreds of years, it is time for some mutual respect and power sharing between Highlands and Lowlands, urban and rural.
It will not be easy, but it must happen. And above all, let’s not fall into this trap of divide and rule again.
Lots to agree with there, John!..
‘in London they don’t care what happens here, but in Edinburgh they hate us’. I’ve often thought that was a fairly stupid thing to say. Why would anyone in Edinburgh “hate” the Highlands? It wasn’t Edinburgh that poisoned the land. Or turned large tracts of land into weapons test areas, or firing ranges. I think you’ll find the MOD has a very large interest in what happens there.
You might think the crofter’s comment was ‘stupid’, but it does pretty accurately reflect the views of many highlanders, so perhaps it is worth asking why that is.
As I said, if we are serious about Scotland’s independence (and I am) we have to face up to and deal with some deep seated issues and prejudices, and make sure that an independent country is one that works for everyone, including the ‘socially conservative’.
It goes back centuries. The serious attacks on Gaelic language and culture really start with James VI / I, a Lowland Scot, whose vision of a single, unitary kingdom of ‘Great Britain’ had no place for them. The Plantations in Ireland of course had started under the Tudors, but the Flight of the Earls in 1607 was followed by a ferocious colonisation and settlement of Ulster by James – settling it with Lowland Scots. He did not distinguish between the Gaels of Ireland and Scotland. The Statutes of Iona (1609) were followed by a century of colonisation and attacks on Gaelic culture and language before Scotland was bought and sold for English gold in 1707. The concept of the king governing by consent rather than divine right was part of native Gaelic tradition; James’s insistence on divine right was a response to the fact that the first monarch to be executed in Britain was James’s mother, Mary. The second was his son Charles I, for trying to assert that supposed right. This was one root of the English (and French, and American) revolutions.
It’s ironic that so many Highlanders, faced with the invasion and coup d’etat by the Dutch William of Orange in 1688 and later the imposition by London of the German George I, became Jacobites and supported the very royal family who had done so much to destroy them. But the real enemy was not the Lowland Scot or the English but the wealthy financiers and imperialists of London. It was always thus. It still is.
Anyway, after the military conquest of 1746 there was a terrible period of ethnic cleansing in the Highlands, followed by the romanticisation and reinvention of the land and people as ‘nobly savage’. As General Wolfe said in Quebec, ‘Tis no great mischief if they fall’. The sheer racism of Patrick Sellar and other capitalist criminals reflected the view that still seems to persist that the highlands are a wild, empty place – whose people may be despised for their ‘social conservatism’. The highlands are no real threat to anyone anymore, it’s just an expression of deeply engrained prejudice.
The MoD’s interest in the highlands has always limited to what it can get out of the region. It was, like many other poor areas, a recruiting ground for soldiers, although I salute the men of Caithness who refused to sign up for the Crimean War, telling the Duke of Sutherland, ‘let the sheep defend you’. Over the last hundred years it has also been a useful, out of sight, out of mind place where training and weapons testing can take place. The fast breeder reactor and the building of nuclear submarine reactors at Dounreay. The rocket launching sites. Cape Wrath, which somehow is till there despite decades of blasting it with weaponry from all over NATO. The nuclear submarines. Gruinard Island … let’s not go there. Of course, the military top brass may be Scots themselves, but by and large, it’s sheer indifference on their part. The highlands are an empty wilderness – to ‘escape’ to for the shooting season (or more recently to drive round like conquering heroes in their vast American style motorhomes) but otherwise out of sight, out of mind, as far away from London as they can get.
‘She was championed by regressive reactionary voices who wanted to weaponize her views against a progressive future.’
Mike Small seems unaware of the similarity between what he is doing and the ‘regressive reactionary’ (sic) individuals he criticizes. For Mike Small, the decision of one of the most important SNP leaders to withdraw from electoral politics is just another excuse to bash unionist journalists.
For very many people, ‘progressive Scotland’ means Scottish MSPs voting to allow a male rapist to choose to serve his sentence in a women’s prison and indulging relentlessly in identity politics while the social fabric of the country crumples.
If we elect politicians in the hope that they will help solve some large and pressing problems for us, it cannot be acceptable to many reasonable people for that politician (especially on reaching high office) to basically offload their responsibility onto their God, and put the onus on worshippers to pray for a solution to anthropogenic climate change, which I understand was a position promoted by Kate Forbes’ church, and suchlike. Just think about the implications of that for a moment or two. It’s like having a mini monarch with a theocratic cloak of unaccountability. Rising water levels? Our fault for sinning, or not praying hard enough, or praying to the wrong god. We can easily see how wrong things get in other nations following this religious-governance playbook. Tony Blair was bad enough.
All politicians operate according to some sort of beliefs, and all are equally entitled to put them forward, just as we are entitled to agree or disagree as we wish. That’s what democracy is about.
But I was struck by “It’s like having a mini monarch with a theocratic cloak of unaccountability. ”
This is exactly what we do have. Although Charles swore to uphold the Claim of Right, he does not accept that he rules by consent in Scotland. He had the full religious coronation indicating that he sees himself as ruling by divine right. And rule he certainly does, even if he does do it behind the scenes. He doesn’t see himself as a quaint tourist attraction but as a king in the traditional sense, albeit with a public cloak of parliamentary democracy. He has crown immunity, and can do as he pleases. He can and does also grant crown immunity to anyone he feels like, he makes use of that. Every politician, every lawyer and police officer, every soldier, is required to swear an oath of allegiance to him personally. Sinn Fein refuse to do this, so cannot take their seats in Parliament.
The truth is that the rule of law and democracy in Scotland are just charades. Charles has people working for him everywhere and at all levels of society. The Lord Lieutenant here last year visited all community councils offering the support of the crown; and community councillors are not held to any ethical standards. The police tell me that the NC500 and its customers are effectively above the law.
There’s more to this of course, but it’s the reality we live with. In the end, what Charles wants, he aims to get. And he was the one, remember, who in 2020 announced the World Economic Forum’s dystopian ‘Great Reset’ during the great opportunity – as he put it, of Covid. His Prime MInister is also a great fan of the WEF, going on record that he prefers dealing with it than Parliament.
@John Wood, but is democracy the best or most healthy form of government? I have argued not. Royalism is much worse, of course. And we don’t have democracy anyway, as you point out. Electoral representation is typically a kind of elite pandering to the semblance of popular influence, while keeping large swathes of policy outside of that influence (here, under the royal prerogative).
Does indoctrination make someone more susceptible to other ideological influences? There may not be an ‘authoritarian personality’ (we covered some related experiments in psychology), but there are surely personality traits that make someone more or less vulnerable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality#United_States
And when someone loses a framework of belief, do they often seek out another to act as a psychological prop, and continue to act according to some given orthodoxy?
Does an orthodox mindset make you more likely to accept something like neoliberalism? We have seen Christian doctrine crumble under the inexorable questioning of philosophers and the mockery of satirists, and Christian practice exposed by recent historians, whistleblowers, victims and investigators. For a time recently, not a year passed without the heads of Churches having to apologise for something or another. Some later ideologues have learnt their lesson, and pretend they don’t have ideologies, that their views are simply majoritarian, common sense, subjective truth, or if all else fails at least not held by some demonised group.
The legal question is not just about allowable views, but protected views.
Humanism is not the antidote to theocracy, it is just another form of hierarchy.
Forbes is no fool.While I don’t doubt her desire to enjoy family life I think she knows Swinney is a busted flush.His Indy plan for the next election won’t work.It’s not so much cauld kale as positively deep frozen.
So,in my view,Forbes has jumped before the crash.Yes the snp might well win the next holyrood election-so what?Who really cares?They will bumble on under Flynn or some other eejit until the fiscal chickens come home to roost.As a former Finance Minister I think Forbes is aware budgetry pressures are about to be severe.Why stay around and take the flack for the inevitable cuts?
The snp are currently moribund and another Holyrood win will only prolong that situation.They’re a white dwarf.A dead star heading towards a black hole.That’s physics.It’s inevitable.
Yes I agree. She can see the way the wind is blowing and has decided to spend more time with her family. Good for her. Right decision.
This news has given me a spring in my step. For a while there it looked as if the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections might offer us a choice between two Fellows of the neoliberal British-American Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British-American_Project
I agree, an independent Scotland needs to be inclusive, and I too would love to see Scotland being a real alternative society NOT based on neoliberalism
Kate Forbes came across as an intelligent, articulate and personable young woman who was an asset to SNP and independence movement. She was naive in leadership election by being so open about her personal beliefs on moral issues. This was always going to be seized on by media who are particularly hostile to SNP politician’s especially leaders. To her credit she did not take the huff and flounce out of party like another candidate and returned to government under John Swinney. She probably considers that after the leadership election she will not be a future leader and has decided to concentrate on her young family. I don’t think anyone can criticise her for that. Regardless of your opinion of her religious beliefs and economic outlook she will be a loss to SNP as pool of talent is not bottomless.
The comments on this thread make some of the most depressing reading I have observed on this site. The fact that when discussing a senior member of SNP an issue that effects such a small percentage of population generates so much comment and vitriol on a site dedicated to independence is frankly pathetic. FFS everybody get a sense of proportion and concentrate on independence.
Absolutely spot on.
Well, that certainly set the screen on fire! I wish I had more time to contribute but I think something has to be said about tolerance, Kate Forbes and others of her ilk. Indeed, it could be argued that Kate Forbes is an examplar of what tolerance really is, what it means in practise. She is regularly portrayed as someone who wants to ‘limit the rights of Gay people and trans people’, but that’s not actually true. She has views underpinned by a religious belief which is a different thing, she accepted the democratic votes in Holyrood, so what’s the matter with that? That’s what a parliament is for, different views, discussion, and a vote.
If we accept all of the criticisms of her and her church – those illiberal ideas that lie in her heart – surely by staying in a party that promotes and votes for the very opposite of those beliefs, a party introducing polices that act against her personal religious beliefs and yet she stays within, still working as an MSP with vigour, isn’t that an example of tolerance? Look at it: Gay marriage – still there, Trans rights – still there, Self ID – still stayed. Isn’t that tolerance? So what about us? Is the ‘othering’ of people from a Christian background tolerance? Is calling the Free Church of Scotland ‘extremist’an example of tolerance? Yes, it’s a small religious denomination, but it holds views much less controversial or what some might call ‘regressive’ than say Sunnis – are Sunnis extremists? That’s 1.8 billion extremists we’d have – a number that includes our former first minister. Similarly, our present FM is Presbyterian but chooses to attend the Catholic church with his family upon a Sunday: the Catholic Church is anti abortion, anti assisted dying, anti gay marriage, anti trans; thats another 1.3 billion people, are they – includind the FM’s family – extremists?
Most of us on here are pro independence, for me, I don’t care if you are an out and out Tory, a Liberal even a Monarchist, that is a different battle, if we want independence we need to work together, and that means working with people you vehemently disagree with on other subjects. If we want to move this agenda forward then we have to try to find a definition of tolerance that doesn’t ‘other’ people, surely that should be easy, I mean it’s tolerance isn’t it? If we cannot do that how can we convince unionists to come over to our side?
Mike finishes his article with “The reality is that Forbes cultural conservatism raised significant questions about what kind of Scotland we want to live in and create in 2025. She was championed by regressive reactionary voices who wanted to weaponize her views against a progressive future and re-frame Scottish politics.” but is that an example of tolerance? Has the wooley term progressive really just deteriated and decomposed to mean nothing more than ‘my views’? Surely, and I speak as a socialist, surely those on the right have a right to express their vision for the kind of Scotland they want to live in and create in 2025 – and beyond?
Perhaps, we really need to take a leaf out of the practices religious people in our midst hold onto, perhaps we need to examine ourselves and find out those prejudices that lurk inside us all, we are after all the same, the one species, just animals trying to make our way in the world. It might be an easier task if our species could become more tolerant of its members and, indeed, become more tolerant and respectful of the other creatures on the planet.
Well said.
Good to know that common sense realism from yourself+ John Woods exists on this forum! I find I can’t resist ad hominem when confronted with bampottery! Mea culpa…
You yourself started the bampottery with your “woke-gripped assembly” nonsense.
The same attitudes permeated the Parliament as exists, still, in NHS Fife-the point essentially being that on the GRA thing, all parties chose to see themselves as ‘progressive’ + leading not following- a grave mistake for the 2 parties who would seek to govern in coalitions of various sorts, SNP+ Labour- the GRA was not,nor ever would be the talk of the steamie! (If you are of an age to recognise the reference.) Thankfully, you refrained from going Tonto a la McNab, but as there would appear to me to be no meeting of minds here, I shan’t bother continuing.
How very patronising. I know what a steamie is. You’re bang on about the meeting of minds though.
Hugh – just give it a rest about GRA FFS.
I am more interested in your and others views views on the independence and how we convince the majority of Scots that independence will bring them economic prosperity, cheaper bills (especially energy), improved public services, reduce inequality and poverty. In short how can independence make Scotland a better nation than it is today. In other words the important issues that relate to the majority of Scots.
I am sick to the back teeth of men of my age banging on about transgender issues – an issue hyped up by opponents of independence which is only relevant to a small percentage of the population with no impact or relevance to our life. It is so boring mate change just change the record!
Do you include Trump in that?
IMHO being against equal marriage, abortion and woman church ministers, and her view that having children outside of marriage was “wrong” is a fairly low bar. This is neither tolerant nor progressive.
Its 2025.
Thank you for those wise words Mike Small
@Editor, that’s a category error, years don’t have values, and what values appear to be current in 2025 among Earth-humans anyway? There are no cultural ratchets AFAIK, and the dustbin of history remains available to rake through. Perhaps you missed the point of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale? Based on, y’know, real-life events?
Tolerance is pretty meaningless without specifics, otherwise you get into that ‘tolerating intolerance’ loop. How much pollution (etc) should we tolerate? And laws and policies require some agreement on definitions. Otherwise governments can twist terms into meaning what they prefer, like, oh, say ‘terrorist’.
As I say, one of the potentially meaningful sense of progress is ‘progression upwards from the Cave of Shadows’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
But since this is a site for culture-vultures, what (if any) is the Scottish equivalent of the movie Menocchio the Heretic (2018)? There will always have been unbelievers, disbelievers, pretend believers, but although I’ve seen some anti-clerical historical-based films recently, none have been Scottish. I’ve even read a bit recently on the anti-griot (praise singer) tradition.
Interesting how we are are all talking about Kate’s religious views and not about her neoliberalism. All this stuff about ‘progressive’ politics or whatever is a distraction, a deflection. Neoliberalism, scientism, technocracy is the real problem here, and whatever party you vote for that is what you get.
Because it is the only belief system within the Overton window. The billionaires supposedly ‘own’ the science, the ‘facts’ and the technology and it is all for their rxclysive benefit, at our expense.. That is the philosophy that needs to be challenged. It has nothing of any value to offer.
She was young and naive and bought into that set of beliefs because, apparently, it was the only show in town.
That is the real reason why she wouldn’t get re-elected in 2024. Highlanders are sick to death of the forced exploitative industrialisation of the highlands for energy we don’t need; the NC500, the corrupt freeport; NPF4., the MPAs, the de-funding of all
our public services; the fuel poverty; the ferries; the billionaires buying up everything; the new clearances, the utter corruption …
Where are we gong to find some candidates to challenge all that?
lLet’s talk about those things because they are why the SNP will lose the Highlands next year. Not that any other party currently offers us any real alternative. Even the Greens are bought and sold for corporate gold.
excuse typos – ‘2024’ should have been 2026 etc
I mean if you’re gay, or a woman, or a child, these ideas about being progressive are very real and live, but I’m very happy to talk about neoliberalism
The aggressor making out they are the victim. Minority languages need positive discrimination otherwise they will disappear, under the world dominance of English, and minority groups such as Gay people and trans need their rights unquestionably otherwise we are back to being in the closet or beaten up for being different.
If John Swinney finds holiness and sanctity in a RC chapel, as a Presbyterian, so do I; not because my wife/ husband is RC I have been made most welcome and go up for a blessing but do not take the sacraments, the priest took the trouble to explain, and it’s fine by me. Yes very Gay me, and my same sex partner is made very welcome too. He does not go up for a blessing, no one has made any speeches suggesting my rights are less important.