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?

I'm not sure that you need to worry, I've a feeling you're going to end up with Humza.

Agree, @stargirl1701 . Can't really think of a parallel church in England/Wales. The "Wee Frees" aren't evangelical really, they are just really hard line presbyterian. My eldest had a friend whose parents were in that church - she wasn't allowed to attend kids' birthday parties or activities on a Sunday, no telly on a Sunday, just wholesome walks and reading the (parental approved) books, wasn't allowed to participate in yoga at school because it was "mind-altering". It's only been very recently that there have been ferries running to Wee Free strongholds like Stornoway on a Sunday and very few shops and leisure centres are open on a Sunday.

The whole of the SNP are dangerous because the are blinded, sleekit and mostly stupid. However, I'm an atheist and I couldn't care less what someone's personal beliefs are as long as they do their job competently. That's where the main issues are.

BTW, Ian Blackford got rightly bumped ages ago and not because of his religion but because he is a lying incompetent piece of shite.

You already know the answer. It's only when women have 'problematic' ideas that anyone gets worked up.

@twitterexile no i didn't worry about Bunter in the HOC - he was just there to make up the numbers/give us a laugh every week when he had his ass handed to him at PMQ's. In the HOC he was neither in government not even the formal opposition (labour) he was simply one of those extras required to make up the numbers.
The difference with Forbes ending up a FM, then she would be FM and in charge of the Scottish government - leading the party in government who are able to make changes to devolved areas of reasonability.

That an Bunter is religious in name only - he prefers making money

Actually I disagree, I think it’s more when white people do. I mean look at JRM 😳 much as I hate to look like I’m ‘standing up for him’, you can’t say his views haven’t caused a stir.

Indeed.

But Ian Blackford wasn't actually in charge of anything, was he? His job was to get red in the face and rage at Boris. Oppose the government. He had no power to make decisions and pass through policies.

Who dodged the gay marriage vote but sides with the men who want into women's facilities.

He's a real treat...

Actually I disagree, I think it’s more when white people do. I mean look at JRM 😳 much as I hate to look like I’m ‘standing up for him’, you can’t say his views haven’t caused a stir.

I've always thought it was more that he's such a cunt that has created a stir.

No matter what Useless does he gets promoted.
Surely getting caught driving without insurance while Transport Minister would morally be a resignation matter - but not in the SNP.

@Butchyrestingface well one and the same for him really, he thinks women who have been raped shouldn’t be allowed a termination. How dare he.

Given that Sturgeon managed to create a situation with the GRR clashing with Westminster and the point about it undermining the law, to the point that it was one of the things that ultimately forced her resignation, I really wouldn't worry.

If she becomes first minister she can't do shit on those two issues and if she doesn't she's on collision course with Westminster and the public.

Not happening and if she goes down that route the snp will be toast at the polls.

She's not going to be rolling back advances like that, but she may well stem the tide on modernity for its own sake, rather for any actual benefit.

To be fair, many many people voted against gay marriage simply because it was a redefinition of an existing word. Many people felt that Civil Partnership addressed all the inequities and practical issues without redefining the word marriage.

I am 'against abortion' for me, but wouldn't dream of inflicting that restriction on other women.

My beliefs affect how I behave, not how I expect other people to behave.

At least Forbes in honest - what does Humza really think about these issues? why did he miss votes?

I didn't 'worry' about him because he had no real power.

I didn't like him or agree with him on one single issue. But the leader of the SNP in the HoC is nothing more than a minority voice. The FM is a different thing altogether.

I think missing votes when your conscience won't let you vote the way your constituents want is the only thing a politician can do really. That doesn't bother me as a principle.

Of course, and what I think you're saying, is that when AN Other politician looks to take a big job, missing votes means you don't really know what they think and how they'll therefore shape policy. Which I hadn't really thought of before, that's an interesting point.

His job is to vote for what is best for his constituents

Abstaining because it would conflict with his personal beliefs isn't acceptable. He didn't abstain either, he ran away and concocted an 'important' meeting to clash as soon as he knew when the vote was to be

Laws on same-sex marriage and on abortion are and I expect always will remain and be supported by a majority of MSPs.

It won't change whoever ends up being First Minister.

Yep, and was suing a local nursery because they were full and didn’t have space were racist.

Conveniently dropped the case a few days before Sturgeon resigned, after he’d got the head up.

@user1471447863 well it's not really, is it? Most votes are whipped so most of the time most MPs or MSPs vote with their party. That's why manifestos are important, so that people know what they're voting for. And in any manifesto there may well be things that a constituent disagrees with. And of course, lots of constituents don't get the person they voted for either.

Occasional votes, abortion being one iirc, is a conscience vote where they vote along their own inclinations.

Sometimes they'll abstain or vote against the whip because it's a particular constituency issue.

Like for eg, opening a socking great coal mine might be 'best' for a constituency but if you have a Green MP, you aren't going to get it.

YABU. There are lots of people in Scotland who take a strictly religious view of marriage. I think they are dead wrong but I don't think that automatically makes them bigots or means they should be excluded from high office.

She was honest about her views and respectful of them not being the majority view, I think (given how bad the other choice is) that she's a pretty good option.

I can't get over the absolute hypocrisy that an evangelical Christian is a problem but a Muslim man isn't. Either their religion is going to conflict with their jobs or it isn't.

Kate Forbes is not going to role back gay marriage. How do you suppose that would even happen? It's not a popular issue and certainly not one her party would support.

Vote for her or don't, but you are an absolute idiot if you think Humza doesn't go in with his very own biases too.

Anyway, what the SNP members are voting for is to decide who is going to be leader of the party. The MSPs (all parties) vote on who becomes FM. So KF could win and the SNP/Greens could vote in Yousless or indeed the other side of the parliament with a few defectors or SNP abstainers could vote in Sarwar or Ross or another. The whole process is bizarre and not representative.