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?

That’s so pathetic and cowardly. Says it all really.

It seems that Humza Yousaf needs a 'safe space' at least that's what the explanation is. Ash Regan has also said she is happy for live streaming to take place.

I would have thought that a candidate for the leader of the SNP ought to be robust enough to be able to have their position scrutinised. Surely it's a requirement of the job?

One would have thought so but looks increasingly like there is an attempt to crown Humza and he can’t stand up to any scrutiny because the man can’t lie straight in bed.

Agree, no other reason for it.

Tell me again why we need to worry about KF but not HY?

He’s a useful idiot who wants to be boss, oh sorry he is deeply committed to himself, sorry a successful future for all Scottish people and will drive his own career, sorry independence forward better than anyone else? KF just an honest woman, she has no chance

Nail on head.

And here is the perfect tweet from Joanna Cherry (who I must warn you is both female and a lesbian so what would she know!)

twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1630634407802417153

She specifically references SUNLIGHT.

Long been an admirer of JC and her calm courage. She has been treated appallingly.

Of course, she's the wrong kind of lesbian.

Precisely. The actual kind.

Unless TeaKlaxon is a paid up member of the SNP tea can't vote for Kate.

What @Teaklaxon is doing is trying to claim that Kate isn't worthy of a vote because she is homophobic due to her religious beliefs even though she has stated that this will not stop her from upholding the current legal position.

This means that KF is being castigated by Tea and by others for what she thinks rather than what she has stated that she will do.

In other words 'wrong think'.

What else is Tea so invested in in this thread other than trying to prevent Kate from getting this job?

So just to clarify you believe that KF should not be first minister due to her view on this particular issue?

Yes.

First because it’s homophobic and I don’t think anyone should be in a leadership position who views gay people as less worthy.

Second because I don’t trust that she would act in the best interests of gay people when facing policy decisions. Marriage isn’t likely to be on the table (but who knows what comes in the future) but other areas of our rights certainly will be. Issues around the rights of lesbian parents, around inclusive sex education, tackling homophobic bullying, tackling the rise in homophobic hate crime etc.

All of those policy issues require someone who starts from the premise that gay people are equal and their relationships are equal.

@TeaKlaxon
Ok I understand what you are saying and can see your point of view.

I feel, however, that to want to stop someone with a religious view from a position is wrong. Religion and belief are protected characteristics so if someone was banned from being able to take on a role due to their religion that would be discriminatory in law. However, irrespective of the law I think its wrong in terms of freedom ie hold a particular point of view is part of democracy and in a free country people can do this. I agree with you regarding the laws on marriage as I can't see the marriage law being repealed, I don't believe there would be sufficient support for this and the law is widely accepted. As for the other issues I am not well versed not some of these - with regard to sex education in school through I am not sure what your concern would be specifically.

@TeaKlaxon define ‘gay person’ and define ‘lesbian’.

I don’t think in either case you mean a man or a woman who is exclusively single sex attracted.

I will ask you again if it concerns you that a senior figure in stonewall stated that if lesbians preclude trans women from their dating pool they are sexual racists and are the bigots (for being exclusively single sex attracted)?

I think that when you accuse people of homophobia it is important that we understand what your position is on these issues to have an honest and open discussion.

Why is it only now that they are questioning some of sturgeons schemes?. And the asking what sturgeons husbands role was within the snp. Surely these questions and many others should have been asked long before now or were they all scared of sturgeon.

Why do you keep banging on about her being ‘banned’? No one is suggesting she be banned from office.

I also don’t have any obligation to be more accepting of people who think I should have fewer rights just because they’re motivated by religion.

On the sex education point. It was one example of where political leaders have to weigh in in areas that directly affect the well-being of gay people. We’ve seen in England protests against inclusive sex education. We’ve seen in the US an all out assault on gay rights including through new ‘don’t say gay’ laws. You are naive if you think the campaigns for those sort of changes are coming here.

A First Minister whose starting position is that gay people are unworthy of certain rights can’t be trusted to take the right decisions for our well-being in the future.

A First Minister whose starting position is that gay people are unworthy of certain rights can’t be trusted to take the right decisions for our well-being in the future

Just to point out to those who are not fully aware of Teaklaxon's point. Tea is very worried about a future first minister's ability to be trusted on the rights of gay people but teaklaxon does not define a gay person as someone who is exclusively single sex attracted.

Other gay people, the ones that believe that gay people are single sex attracted are extremely concerned that the implications of the Gender Bill supported by Humza Yousaf , will mean that the single sex attracted gay people will have less rights and will even be called bigots for their sexual orientation if they exclude trans people (to be clear people of the opposite sex) from their potential dating pool.

This is extremely homophobic for very obvious reasons. Being gay is havine same sex orientation. That's it it's nothing else. Saying males can be lesbian's is highly offensive to many lesbians despite what Teaklaxon is pointing out.

If you don't like KF's religious views that's fine but to claim she is a danger to gay people but HY is not is completely incorrect.

If you want to read more about this very real and concerning issue start here -

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385

and for more detail -

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4551804-all-about-the-cotton-ceiling

After today's suggestion that an independent Scotland will have the British pound sterling for two months then switch to a bespoke new Scottish currency then presumably to euros, I'm more worried about Ash Regan!

Excerpt from an article by Laura Perrins:

'The Guardian asked Forbes how she planned to pitch herself as a “leader who inspires confidence” to LGBT+ members of the party and the country, given her beliefs.
Forbes said: “In a pluralistic, tolerant society, I will defend to the hilt everybody’s rights to live and to love free of harassment and fear. I would hope that I might be afforded the same freedom and the same right to believe and practice fairly mainstream views that are actually common across the mainstream religions, in terms of Islam and so on.”
Anything other than this approach means we no longer live in a democracy – but a soft dictatorship where everyone must hold the same views on all subjects of importance.'

I will defend to the hilt everybody’s rights to live and to love free of harassment and fear

But not to marry

@HBGKC

Her defence is being homophobic is 'mainstream'?!

No but it's representative of a large section of the population.

That's the problem with representative democracy. People vote for politicians who have the same social values as them.

Personally I'd prefer democracy to the alternatives.

I respect the right of others to disagree with me and for those views to be represented in Parliament.

@Aphrathestorm

You think a large section of society are homophobic?

I thought most polls were supportive of gay marriage?

@Botw1 we have established many times over that you and Teaklaxon consider it homophobic not to support gay marriage despite Stonewall and other gay people not liking the idea either.

We have also established that other people disagree with that view.

I think we all agree that people are permitted to hold different opinions to you, AND that such people are even permitted to run for public office. (I think; are they allowed, in your world?)

If you agree with that last paragraph, may we stop going around in circles please?

If you disagree that people with opinions opposed to yours should be allowed to run for public office, just say so. Or are they allowed to run, as long as they don't win?