To worry about Kate Forbes becoming first minister

[Creatine11]

Abortion and LGBT rights have been something that have largely not been part of political debate for at least the last 10 years. Gay marriage was enacted in 2014 and was broadly supported. The last serious challenge to abortion rights was at the start of the coalition government with Nadine Dorries et all. However, broadly gay rights and abortion rights have been settled issues- it has almost been taboo for politicians to oppose them. Certainly, there hasn’t been any serious possibility over the last decade (at least) of any rowing back on abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, divorce law etc.

However, it is clear that in the heart of hearts of Forbes she disagrees with all these things due to her beliefs as an evangelical Christian. By all accounts she was very competent as a minister and has been a good MSP. However, as first minister she will be a figurehead for Scotland as well as setting the tone for policy and political discourse. Also, unlike Rees-Mogg and DUP types, Kate Forbes seems like an otherwise sensible, competent, ‘normal’ politician.

My concern is Forbes being the leader of Scotland could normalise her views on these issues. While I don’t believe abortion or gay marriage face immediate threat, if it’s brought into mainstream politics it will become a party political issue and may well shift public opinion, especially given the current culture war. Politicians, journalists, activists and others who have held these views quietly may be emboldened to launch a new campaign against abortion, LGBT rights or some other issue. I don’t know this would necessarily just be limited to Scotland as Nicola Sturgeon and her policies had a very high profile in the rest of the UK and influenced policy.

Aibu to worry about Kate Forbes becoming SNP leader and first minister?

It's reported in the Telegraph -

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/24/snp-humza-yousaf-leadership-candidate-gay-marriage-vote/

All stages of legislation matters equally - a loss at second reading matters just as much as a loss at the final stage.

The concept of 'the vote that actually mattered' is naive and facile.

Secondly, when there are clashes between a parliamentary vote and some other meeting, a ministers' private office will almost always explore first whether the whips will offer a slip. Slips will usually be granted unless the vote is expected to be very tight.

The marriage equality vote was obviously not a tight vote - hence Yousaf's vote was not 'decisive' to the point that it should necessarily have taken priority over a Scottish man awaiting execution!

In what capacity do you think Alex Neil was familiar with the operations of Yousaf's private office?

Neil was the Cabinet Secretary for Health at the time. Yousaf was Minister for International Development.

Why on earth would you think Neil would be privy to fairly routine correspondence between the whips and Yousaf's office? Again, this suggests you don't really understand how these things work.

That's behind a paywall.

Can you let me know who the article claims 'was there at the time' who would have known the detail of correspondence between Yousaf's office and the whips' office?

Sorry but the most important vote was clearly the vote to bring it in to law. If you were someone who really believed in the legislation, who had attended all previous votes, you would make sure you were there for the vote to bring it in to law. You don’t understand or want to wilfully ignore that.
The Whip’s office can offer a slip. The issue here is that if Humza really wanted to be there, he would have been there. He wasn’t because for whatever reason he didn’t want to be. He wasn’t doing anything that couldn’t have been done at any other time, literally before or after the vote even on the same day. The logical conclusion is that as a senior SNP member he would have had to do media after the vote praising it. He didn’t have to do that because he engineered it so he missed the vote. Why you refuse to even consider that is a possibility when it is glaringly obvious is beyond me.

Why you refuse to even consider that is a possibility when it is glaringly obvious is beyond me.

It's not beyond me . TeaKlaxon is on the side of the genderists.

The fact that Yousaf might have missed the votes for 'religious reason's' doesn't meet the genderists narrative.

The fact that there are people within the SNP who are stating that he arranged the meeting after the date of the vote was announced and asked permission to miss it and stated that it was because he was 'under pressure of the mosque' must be dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative that Kate is being treated unfairly.

You're just wrong on the legislation. Ministers miss votes all the time, even on issues they care deeply about, when those votes aren't going to be close.

And you're wrong on Yousaf too - he did praise the vote in the media. So the very reason you are ascribing to him for missing it is wide of the mark. If he was missing the vote to avoid having to go on the record supporting the vote, or celebrating the legislation becoming law - then he didn't do a very good job of it given his media pronouncements before and after the vote; and of course more recently as well.

Humza was minister for external affairs at the time of the vote. Humza was asked by the whip to attend the vote. Two days later he personally arranged a meeting to clash with the vote. The Scottish man was not about to be executed, his trial was a week away at the time of the vote.

There aren't people saying that.

There is one person saying that. One person who is a prominent backer of Kate Forbes. One person who had no role in either Yousaf's office nor in the Whips' office.

You're really grasping at straws to excuse Kate Forbes' homophobia.

Please see above report which states clearly the timeline based on Humza’s own diary records.

Well I'm sure if Alex Salmond didn't agree with Neil's reports in the press he'd have come out to say so in public given that he was a party to events.

Indeed and Humza himself wisely dodged the question when asked if Alex Neil was lying. As had he said yes he’d fairly rapidly be in receipt of a writ for defamation and fairly soon after that would be paying out a hefty wodge in damages as on the facts as they are available no component legal adviser would suggest he does anything but retract and pay damages asap.

Why do some people seem to think that Humza Yousaf possibly being against marriage equality is worse that Kate Forbes definitely being against it.

It's not that watmel it's about the arguments about the ability of a FM to act in a way which is not motivated by their religious beliefs.

There are people who are saying that KF is unsuitable because her religious beliefs would get in the way of impartiality. It is clear that HY is also likely to let his religious beliefs get in the way of impartiality, as evidenced by the fact he declined to vote on the same issue that KF is being castigated for making her opinion clear on.

Also this suggestion that KF Is a homophobe is getting up the noses of those of us who believe that HJ (and his support of the Gender Bill) will make homophobia more rampant in Scotland especially for Lesbians. There are also those of us who believe that transitioning children, which HJ supports through lowering the GRC age, is deeply homophobic.

The issues here are complex but it seems hypocritcal that KF is being vilified for religious views when others are not for theirs. Equally many believe that HY stands for a 'new religion' of genderism which is deeply anti women and homophobic. Genderism is not based on material fact but on a belief system which is no different from any other belief system at core.

The timeline isn't what's being disputed. What's being disputed is that there's anything unusual in the timeline, or that Alex Neil has any particular knowledge of Yousaf's motivations (again, beyond the Islamophobic assumption of muslim = homophobe).

Sorry - again - just to confirm is there any evidence from anyone, anyone at all, who was actually privy to Yousaf's office's arrangements with the whips that Yousaf sought to miss the vote (that vote - only one of them mind you) because of pressure from the mosque?

The key vote @TeaKlaxon

Look I know that you don't want a link here because of your views on the Gender Bill. But there is one.

It is hypocritical to call KF a homophobe when the Gender Bill is deeply homophobic.

It is hypocritical to say that KF should not be FM because she cannot be impartial for religious reasons and completely deny the possibility that HJ did not cast this final vote for religious reasons when there are reports within the SNP that he asked to be excused for religious reasons.

Either HJ or AN is lying, if AN is lying then surely the ex - first minister who was party to the discussion about the mosque involvement would speak out as he was a party 'the lie.'

It must be possible to accept that even if HJ was not personally opposed to gay marriage he declined to vote for religious reasons having been put under political pressure and this is indicative that he might not be impartial from a religious point of view. This means that not treating HJ's religion as a potential issue with impartiality whilst treating KFs religion as such is hypocritical.

So you don’t think it’s unusual that after being specifically asked to attend the vote Humza - not his office as you tried to contend earlier, this isn’t something out in his diary by someone else - himself went out and arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote so that he couldn’t attend it? Frankly the motivations at this stage are irrelevant. A minister in the Scottish government has lied repeatedly on record about why he did not attend a vote. He didn’t attend it because for whatever reason he didn’t want to. Then he’s lied about it more than once. Then he has just stopped short of calling both Alex Neil and Alex Salmond liars. It’s an omnishambles for Humza and it’s all of his own making. A minister who will lie over something that actually isn’t that important will lie about anything.

I don't support either of them

Because Kate Forbes has been 100% honest and upfront about her abhorrent views. Humza Yousef has been 100% evasive. He’s such a bad liar.

none of the 3 candidates are good here, but Ash Regan with her UDI is clearly as mad as a box of frogs, and Humza Yousef is the transport minister who got done for driving without insurance and as justice minister brought forward the hate bill. Both of those two are the screamingly awful Liz Truss candidates.

I’ll take the honest bigot over them please.

Yep, the same thing happens again and again, islamophobes decide anything a muslim says is a lie, as they’re generally stupid people they often get hindu’s and us sikhs mixed in as well!

You know what I really hate? When people use a genuine problem in society (islamophobia) to deflect the issue around someone (Humza). He said that someone else made the appointment that meant he missed the vote when it was him who made the appointment immediately after he was asked to ensure he would be at the vote. It would be understandable if he had said you know I just can’t remember the circumstances but he denied making the arrangements himself, which he did do, and even when this has been clarified he still hasn’t retracted that and said sorry I got it wrong but I remain a supporter of gay marriage. Anti Muslim sentiment is a very real thing in society and must be countered. That doesn’t make Humza untouchable, he has to be held to the standards that all ministers are - not lying being pretty much a prerequisite.

TBF all the mosques are saying ‘don’t vote for him, he’s shit’ too, so if it’s Islamophobia the mosques are guilty of it too.

@Holyroodhell

Are you sure there's not an unexpected normal, will do a good job, 4th option?

Well sure - because Islamic teaching on homosexuality is homophobic. So of course those who subscribe fully to that faith (note this is not all Muslims) are likely to back a homophobe.

The same is true of many parts of Christianity and more conservative elements of Judaism lest anyone claim that I’m saying ‘only’ Islam has homophobic teaching.

So I can fully understand why mosques might back a Christian homophobe over a Muslim supporter of marriage equality.