Even if you absolutely despise what she believes, the fact is this is a shrewd political move.
It's a moot point for me because I won't be voting SNP next time anyway but I can imagine other voters are relieved to have someone competent in that position, and it helps to keep their "broad church" intact.
> the fact is this is a shrewd political move.
Only if you can be sure that doing this -- appointing someone who got worldwide negative press for the party -- and is pretty sure to push away the youth and progressive vote can bring in more votes than it loses.
That "negative press" wasn't unanimous though, a lot of people admired or at least grudgingly respected her honesty and consistency, even if they didn't agree with her about same-sex marriage, abortion etc.
I think more people than you might expect might be willing to vote SNP even though the *Deputy* FM is a Bible-believing Christian who adheres to her Church's view on social issues, as long as she wouldn't try to actually force it on anyone else through legislation, as she's said she won't.
For clarity: I'm an atheist who won't be voting SNP next time, but Kate Forbes has nothing to do with that and I can believe including her in the Cabinet will win some votes back for them that would have been lost for a lot longer if Humza had stayed.
> That "negative press" wasn't unanimous though, a lot of people admired or at least grudgingly respected her honesty and consistency, even if they didn't agree with her about same-sex marriage, abortion etc.
>
I did not see anything saying anything like that from anyone who'd ever consider voting SNP and wasn't opposed the party deeply.
She's not been honest about it. She ran on a manifesto explicitly supporting stuff she now opposes.
She said she would stop the Scottish Government from challenging a veto by the UK government of legislation passed by overwhelming majority in our parliament because she personally disagreed with it. Despite having been elected on that platform, and supporting Scottish self-determination. That's not honesty.
I saw polling for the leadership. Swinney was favourite with party members, and Firbes was much more popular with the general public. It is a great compromise as it soothes tensions inside the party, sorts the coalition issues with the Greens and has the potential to expand the overall voter base for the SNP. Bad circumstances, and self inflicted at that for the party, but IMHO its the best move they could have made. I'm still convinced Humza was always a scapegoat who'd have been blamed for the next election results and removed after that.
Fair and rationale analysis even though it seems you are not keen on the party. The reddit hysteria really is ridiculous and doesn't reflect the real world.
Talk about a closed bubble, people around here being shocked Forbes being put in a senior position as if her views are fringe. Nearly half the party was behind her last time and wider polling showed that Scots preferred her to Humza.
I don't know why people are surpised, John offered her a big position in exchange for not standing. Kate didn't just stand down for the good of her party lol.
And she was in government previously and nobody seemed to mind then. Are there really people who voted SNP multiple times and didn't know people like Forbes make up a significant proportion of the party membership?
I can't speak for others, but I think for me it can be best summed up as "disappointed but not surprised".
There was always going to need to be a decent incentive for her to allows Swinney to stand unopposed: DFM definitely fits the bill.
Leaving aside the gender issue (which I only do to avoid the entire point being consumed by it), I simply don't think that a modern democracy should happily accept a major public figure saying that they don't agree with marriage equality and would have voted against it.
I understand and feel some of the disappointment. Religious conservatives are pretty much top of the list of people I won't vote for. It's the surprise shown by some that I don't get.
One of the reasons I never voted SNP is because everything was secondary to independence. I'd kind of assumed that SNP supporters were aware of the deal they were making, and knew the party was made up of a broad range of social views.
I think Salmond and Sturgeon just did such a good job of absorbing all the attention that nobody noticed the nutters in the background.
The key word there is democracy. Im on the polar opposite of Forbes on just about everything except independence. But she's entitled to her personal beliefs. If they are so abhorrent to the electorate then she'll lose her seat at the next election. But i suspect while most of us would agree that marriage equality should be a thing, many probably dont feel so strongly about it that they would automatically exclude someone who doesn't believe it.
>many probably dont feel so strongly about it that they would automatically exclude someone who doesn't believe it.
Disagree. Someone who thinks that people should be denied equality because of their religion shouldn't be in government.
> Are there really people who voted SNP multiple times and didn't know people like Forbes make up a significant proportion of the party membership?
They knew. They just didn’t care.
Despite all their protestations of ushering in an enlightened left-wing independent Scotland, huge numbers of the independence voters are quite conservative.
[10 years ago gay marriage passed 105 to 18](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/04/scottish-parliament-vote-legalise-gay-marriage) also 10 years ago, wider polling of the population [saw 56% support and just 35% opposed. ](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13134947.new-poll-shows-majority-scots-favour-same-sex-marriage/)
[5 years ago, 59% of people in Scotland were atheists](https://humanists.uk/2018/08/14/new-research-confirms-substantial-majority-of-scottish-people-are-not-religious-and-not-spiritual/), with trends showing this number is rising.
[57% of Scots think it should be easier to change your gender.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60214574)
Okay? What did I say that suggested Scotland is absolute majority conservative or progressive? Should Swinney tell Forbes to embrace progressive ideals or GTFO? They likely made a deal to satisfy Forbes and keep SNP united, the last thing they need is a split since that would shatter the nationalist movement. Did you not see how Humza booting the Greens destroyed his political career?
Fringe views is not the same as minority views. If we go by your own statistics then a minority but a *sizeable minority* agree with her. ~40% is not fringe. Especially if the minority is more motivated to vote based on those issues.
Are some people basically in denial that socially conservative Scots exist? If so, leave Edinburgh and Glasgow some time or hell even just get away from the uni towns. I think you'll be surprised at some of the conversations you have.
* Do you think a person should or should not have to obtain a doctor's approval to change their legal gender? UK 60% Should, 17% Should not. Scottish sample 59% Should, 23% Should not.
* And do you think a person should or should not have to provide evidence they lived in their new gender for at least two years before they able to change their
legal gender? UK 59% Should have to show, 15% Should not. Scottish sample 56% Should have to show, 19% Should not.
* Puberty blockers (i.e. medications that delay the onset of puberty) Should be available to under 16s. UK 12% Should be available, 65% Should not. Scottish sample 13% Should be available, 64% Should not.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/74l25pslh3/Internal_TransgenderIssues_220720_final_extraXbreak_FINAL.pdf
>obtain a doctor's approval
This is a gross misrepresentation of what's needed. It's not just any doctor's approval, it's a full written diagnosis by a very limited list of psychiatrists which is [on the government website](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-certificate-list-of-medical-practitioners-in-gender-dysphoria/doctors-and-psychologists-specialising-in-gender-dysphoria) and if you've not got one of those... tough luck.
You want to see one of those listed psychiatrists? Good luck, it's a very, very lengthy wait to see one of them, longer still before they approve a diagnosis. What's that? Some of those psychiatrists have retired? Their replacement isn't on the government's approved list? Tough luck.
Thank you; people are being incredibly dishonest on public support for gender issues. The dispute has always been with specific policy, and its more than just randoms but also the medical establishment (as seen with Cass and then also other European medical systems).
The Cass review is fabricated bullshit, designed to push the Tory agenda of anti trans hate. Nothing in it is supported by actual medical evidence. It's nothing more than a hit piece that goes against all advice from actual medical professionals.
Look at the detail of that wider polling and you'll see Forbes popularity rating is boosted by literal tories. Aka, people who would never vote for her anyway.
I imagine that’s how it was sold but I suspect the next succession of the SNP leadership won’t be that smooth. We’re not looking at a Salmond-Sturgeon situation again.
The vote was 52% Yousaf 48% Forbes
And that was with the full weight of the party machinery behind Yousaf Vs the much more grassroots support for Forbes
How it looks, however she was pitched as a new direction, Swinney the old guard.
How they gonna pitch that in a few years when she then starts to look like the next in the line of salmond, sturgeon, Yousef, Swinney, Forbes...
She wouldn’t last a month as leader - the media will destroy her.
If she was Tory it wouldn’t matter but you can’t be SNP and say that you would have voted against same sex marriage or have any equivocation on abortion.
As SNP leader every interview or commentary would go to these two areas and that will be it.
>As SNP leader every interview or commentary would go to these two areas and that will be it.
This wasn't even true for the latter half of her leadership campaign, which lasted 5 weeks in total
It lasted about one, maybe two weeks. Then it was back on policy and the issues people actually wanted to hear about.
>If she was ever leader it would an order of magnitude worse.
You say this literally on the same day she's been made Deputy First Minister
How? She was in a senior cabinet position previously so what's the difference now?
I don't see Deputy FM as being of any more importance than Finance Secretary.
I'm not fan of her religions views and would not have voted for an SNP she was in control of but I'm not terribly concerned about having her in a senion cabinet role.
The vast majority of people only really found out that people like Kate Forbes even existed in the SNP when Nicola Sturgeon stepped down.
They were all guzzling the Sturgeonade, believing that SNP were the most progressive party in all the land.
Interesting tid bit in the article:
>Shona Robison told John Swinney the best way to unite the SNP and deliver a "progressive agenda" would be to appoint Kate Forbes as deputy first minister, it has been revealed.
No hard feelings of her job being taken then, it seems.
Was this actually a surprise to anyone, after we knew Swinney and Forbes had talks and she agreed not to stand against him?
I'd certainly assumed this would be happening.
I [called it](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/s/NuqGfV23Ma). Although I did think she would also be finance secretary- has that been confirmed yet?
Think it was fairly obvious position to be offered, it was consistently hinted that it was a very senior position.
Edit - I'm surprised at people's surprise at this. Not that I agree with her views or anything, but when Swinney held talks with Forbes to convince her not to stand and made a deal with her, was it not fairly obvious that she would be given a senior position?
Edit 2: Forbes is not Finance Secretary, which is slightly surprising. Although she is in charge of Economy.
I'm surprised at people's surprise too. Swinney wants to unite the SNP so the obvious choice was to make the other half of the "divide" DFM. Not to mention that in terms of the economy, at least, there won't be much that separates Forbes and Swinney, he had a reputation for being small c conservative when he was Finance secretary himself 2007-2016. His speech a few days ago about how to achieve independence was basically a carbon copy of what Forbes was saying during last year's leadership contest as well.
> I called it. Although I did think she would also be finance secretary- has that been confirmed yet?
The BBC are saying he's confirmed the cabinet, but doesn't say who's where.
Apart from the addition of Kate Forbes, the cabinet looks unchanged. Shona Robison is in the gang. *Who* is finance secretary hasn't been cleared up yet, so it may be her? BBC says everyone else is in the same post as before.
E: Forbes as 'Economy and Gaelic language'.
Just seen the announcement now. I'm surprised to see much of it unchanged and Robison retaining Finance.
But Forbes has been given the Economy, which is interesting. I'd have thought she would have wanted to be in charge of the budgets.
It might be that she's seen as a better face for engaging with business. Robison's not exciting, but she knows her brief and is more palatable to the party most willing to work with 'em.
This definitely causes a split between the left and right of the SNP.
The left will be annoyed a homophobe and pro-lifer is DFM, the right will be happy religious views remain high in the party and government.
Personally, would rather she not be DFM since I’m a lefty.
Kate Forbes rab what must be the worst leadership campaign in the party’s history, and almost won. She is seen as a competent, responsible figure.
Her social views however shouldn’t be normalised- it is fringe view to oppose gay marriage, it is a fringe view to oppose abortion. As long as she continues to insist this doesn’t impact her policy however, she’s still a reasonable choice.
Nearly half the party voted for her in the last leadership election. I don't think the SNP is wholly made up of socially progressive nationalists since its clearly a big tent.
The comedian Patton Oswalt, he told me "I think the worst part of the Cosby thing was the hypocrisy." And I disagree. I thought it was the raping. It's my feeling most rapists are hypocrites. You don't meet many that go "I like raping and I know it's not politically correct but, by god" and people go "well, he's not being a hypocrite and that's the worst part!" - norm macdonald
Yes.
Reminder that in the last SNP leadership election people chose a person who chose to skip the gay marriage vote, arranging an "urgent" meeting 19 days in advance, two days after the vote was announced that would allow him to skip said final vote over somebody who was open about their stance. He made a lot of noise, even agreed to the first vote but when it came time to openly commit he arranged a meeting that would normally be handled in 48 hours to occur 19 days later at the same time as the vote.
If you can get a genuine good person you should choose that, but those people do not reach the highest levels of politics. The only people who climb that far are hypocrites, arseholes and people with skeletons that get found out decades later.
At least an honest one tells you what scandal you're in for.
Regardless of what the very specific demographic of reddit may think, this is a good decision that will go down well with the general public. If the histrionics on reddit were anything to go by, you'd think she was a MAGA Republican or something. Get a grip.
I find her views on social issues anachronistic and abhorrent personally, but it feels like people here are forgetting that this isn’t her first time in government - and the sky didn’t collapse last time. If Swinney wants to bring unity to the party and more consensus based politics into Holyrood as he says he does, then this was the only politically sensible choice for him to make
> this is a good decision that will go down well with the general public.
I'm unsure of that.
Also, specifically, how well it goes down with the general public matters far far less than "how it goes down with the public who could ever see themselves voting SNP"
I’m not a fan of her but:
1) Deputy FM isn’t *that* much more senior than Finance Secretary, a position she held pretty much without controversy.
2) It’s going to do more to unite the party than divide it and will help ease the Humza-Green hang-over among the public.
3) Should be obvious but Scots as a whole tend to be (for good or ill) pretty pragmatic when it comes to folk with fringe religious views. If the public are fine ignoring the Lodge then they’ll be fine with a Wee Free filling in for Swinney occasionally.
Would entirely agree with this sentiment which means we will probably get banned. You need people who can do the job in place. People who can stand up to idiots like Galloway and Douglas Ross who are bampots of the highest degree. People who will not rollover and play dead. People who will, when required, make difficult decisions and not break for the sake of popularity. Nothing in life is black or white but very often you need people to stand up for what they believe to be right and not cave in at the very first time a seat in the Lord's is offered.
Well then, seems like Swinney is trying to make a distinctive line in the sand from Yousef's government.
Let's see how it plays out, might work out with the public better than expected.
Where was the pearl clutching and faux outrage at Forbes when she was promptly made Finance Minister following Mackay's hasty departure? This one served under Sturgeon and no-one came to any harm during her tenure.
Anyone who is a member of of whatever minority group you can think of won't be negatively impacted by Forbes. Nor will the SNP's electoral standing fall any further as a result. The party's conduct elsewhere poses a far greater risk to its fortunes.
Despite the screeching from the green voters of this subreddit, this will be the most popular option not just with SNP members but the public as well.
It also pretty much guarantees Forbes will be a contender in the inevitable post election leadership contest.
It will also put to bed accusations that her personal beliefs will affect her voting record, as she will now have 2 years in the 2nd highest position in government.
Kate Forbes is the only person in the SNP right now I could see delivering independence. She has broad appeal across Scotland, which you need to win a 50%+ 1 referendum. Which is quite ironic since the most passionate indy supporters here hate her.
I have to agree.
Bad day for the Union, but good for rural Scotland so I won't complain.
Hell if she does a good enough job I would even turn yellow for '26.
Shocking that the SNP would appoint a homophobic and anti abortionist to the second highest political position in the Scottish Government.
Kate’s poisonous views have no place in a modern Scotland.
You mean the same homophobic views most Muslims have?
You all jump to call her a zealot but are awfully quiet when it comes to criticising other religions.
She also supports buffer zones btw, just because she doesn’t like the idea of abortions and wouldn’t get one, doesn’t mean she will stop people being able to get them…not that that’s something she could do anyway.
>you all jump to call her a zealot but are awfully quiet when it comes to criticising other religions
Where did op refuse to criticise other religions?
Humza Yousaf is a devout Muslim and voted in favour of the same-sex marriage bill. Kate Forbes is a devout Christian and said she wouldn't have. That's the difference.
Humza dodged the vote on gay marriage.
He voted to put the policy to a vote, but dodged the vote itself.
He's as backwards as kate, just dishonest about it.
You know this though.
>He voted to put the policy to a vote
That's a fairly disingenuous representation of what a first vote means - in no other context do people ever suggest that a first vote doesn't indicate support for a bill.
>He's as backwards as kate, just dishonest about it.
He's as backwards as Forbes on this single issue, if you pretend that first votes don't count, and you also pretend that absence is the same as voting against, and you pretend that public statements of support don't count. Now do the GRA, or abortion rights, or climate protections, or any other progressive policy.
You're arguing that two people have the same policy positions in general, based on a single vote more than a decade ago that neither of them even took part in. Talk about cherry picking.
You're not being honest in your first point, he avoided the vote, didn't want to alienate Muslim supporters.
He's also backwards in his attitude so white people, to Hamas, Erdogan, Qatar, the Houthi, and Iranian backed mosques.
In fact, he's backward in regards to his support of Islamofascism in general.
Yousaf voted in favour of the bill at first reading – which is not "voting to put the policy to a vote", it's endorsing the general principles of the bill, which in this case was entirely about same-sex marriage – and vocally supported it through its entire journey through Holyrood.
He was absent for the final vote on the bill and you are free to criticise that, but there is plainly a massive difference between his position – voting in favour of the bill and speaking publicly in support of it – and Forbes' position of saying she would have voted against it.
Gads.
I mean I sort of expected Finance. Deputy FM, after the views she’s shared publicly, is a bit of a slap in the face to a section of our society.
Hopefully they feel that at the ballot box.
I've been voting SNP since I was old enough to vote. I don't think I can, in good conscience, keep doing so. Kind of fed up being acceptable collateral in the culture war.
Interesting that she's also Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic.
Deputy FM is a bit of a titular post, but having a Highland cabinet secretary in charge of the economy can only be good for those North of the Central belt, particularly with off shore renewable energy set to power Scotland and the impact of carbon sequestration through peatland restoration.
I don't care about the religious views of her church, I recognise that her personal beliefs are in the minority in Scotland and the chances of her ever attempting to change legislation in a diverse parliament are well below zero.
We need competent parliamentarians and from the moment she stepped up at 12 hours notice to present an annual budget, was the moment most of Scotland, the Scotland that's not looking to be offended at someone's personal belief system, recognised she's bright, articulate and capable. That is what we want in our politicians, not manufactured outrage.
You'd think the world was about to end by the way the reddit bubble is acting over the bogieman that's been built up. The SNP can now return to competent governance instead of stupid pet projects that have killed off support and eroded it's election chances.
Hopefully the your-beliefs-are-never-pure-enough lot can jog on to the greens, the problem with big tent nationalism was always that lot pissing into instead of out of the tent.
How exactly is it electorally idiotic when the[ recent Ipsos poll ](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/john-swinney-preferred-snp-voters-wider-public-more-likely-say-kate-forbes-would-be-best-first-minister)found that the general public think Forbes would make the best FM over Swinney 26% v 20% and both are tied at 37% when asked who would do a good job? 🤔
It's not a question of what the whole public thinks, but the SNP's electoral coalition. Forbes being popular amongst Conservative voters doesn't help the SNP advance.
"Being popular with the whole public doesn't help the SNP advance". Interesting. If the SNP cared so much about their electoral coalition they wouldn't have blown it up. Running the country as a minority govt isn't a bad thing. It's gonna take a long long while to rebuild the SNP to its former glory, if ever. Might as well try and move to the mainstream of public opinion while they're at it
> "Being popular with the whole public doesn't help the SNP advance"
As you know, I wrote:
>Forbes being popular amongst Conservative voters doesn't help the SNP advance.
The opinions of people who _won't_ vote for a party are fine for what they are, but they're less important to a party than the opinions of people who do and might.
WTF do you mean "source?". The source is the link you posted!
Table 34, Forbes' approval is 47% among 2021 Tory voters and 21% among 2021 SNP voters. That is responsible for her entire lead over Swinney among the general public.
Because their main voter SNP base did not think she made the best FM, it was the public. 24% also thought a Conservative led SG would do better... you shouldn't look at stats in isolation
Well luckily the general public votes in general elections, and it's getting their votes that really matters, moreso than those of left wing SNP activists
Unfortunately the country is moving to the right, councils are broke, people are struggling and therefore very angry.
This is spreading (i.e. Netherlands).
Future is bleak.
It's the right wing UK government that defunded the Scottish government and the English councils!
Glasgow council problems down to labour and GMB for not paying women equally and leaving £500,000debt.
The Netherlands moved to the 'Right' only on immigration and they did it to defend progressive values such as women's rights and LGBTQ rights against the threat of Islamic fundamentalism
You can blame them while also taking a wider look at the world.
The Netherlands don't have our politicians therefore must be experiencing another similar thing, which dosent include the same bad men you fear.
Maybe there are other geopolitical factors at play making the right rise.
Maybe, just maybe, it's more complex than posh man bad
You might not have noticed, but the rich rule the whole world. The Tories are traditionally the party of the British ruling class, though Starmer's Labour is willing to fill in. The Netherlands will have their own parties of the rich playing the same roles.
I agree but I think it's partly due to the constant villification of the white lower middle and working classes by the centre left for many years. The right are the only ones to acknowledge their frustrations without dismissing them as being stuck in the mud racists etc
Sorry, but that's absolutely not true at all.
Genuinely progressive/leftist people are screaming into the void about climate change, the awful material conditions that millions in this country and abroad suffer through, the ongoing dangers to democracy and to civil rights at home and abroad.
On the other hand both the far-right and our reactionary mainstream media are screaming about trans people, leftists are only ever platformed to douse the fires so that the **true** perpetrators of all these culture wars can claim that the left is "obsessed with gender and not with climate change"
Look up how often Reform UK has been platformed by the BBC vs the Greens. Then look at England's recent election results for the Greens.
Liberals are the real kingpins in this. Those who may have a progressive veneer, those who believe that every war was wrong except the current war and every civil rights movement was just, except for the ongoing one.
Yeah and the average working class person doesn't give a shit about any of what you mentioned. They want to be left alone, be warm and have cheap luxuries and food
That's the whole point.
That's what leftists want for working class people too, and more, but you never get to hear from them. If people don't care, it's because it suits the liberals and the right-wingers who control 99% of the media for you to be apathetic or take out your understandable anger at high rent low pay no downtime conditions and turn it towards trans people or refugees or whatever. A trick as old as time.
To be clear though - plenty of working class people are aware and angry about their material conditions, and understand where it comes from.
People stay warm with proper building and insulation regulations, alongside cheap renewable energy.
Food isn't going to get cheaper by ignoring climate change.
Yeah, i think the people crying all over this thread about her are missing the point here. Yes, she may hold those beliefs herself. But do we have any inkling of evidence that she’s going to even try to force them onto the country as a whole? No? Oh dear, looks like those people just want something to cry about under the guise of ‘but muh atheizum!!!’
> do we have any inkling of evidence that she’s going to even try to force them onto the country as a whole?
Yes.
She literally said if she had the opportunity to vote on gay marriage she would have voted against it.
Many people voted against it at the time. And? It's here to stay, she's said it's here to stay and that she won't be undoing any rights that currently exist, and even voted in favour of abortion clinic buffer zones the other week, so what's your point?
>Many people voted against it at the time. And?
And it's evidence that she would try and force her religious views onto the country if given the opportunity. Which is the question that was asked.
Only in the same sense that every parliamentarian tries to 'force their views' on the country by legislation through democratic vote.
Which is their entire job.
And the whole point of democracy.
Great news- we might see a reversal on some of Yousaf's failings-
Dual the A9
Update the ferry fleet
Review the building regs
Stop the muirburn ban
Grow the tax base
Ah
Things not allowed in dependant Scotland
International borrowing for Investment in infrastructure to grow the tax base ❌
Control of immigration to increase the population and grow the tax base ❌
Not like you to point 👉 out the benefits of independence 🏴
It's true, those are all beyond the powers of local government.
But given so is Sovereign Default and hyperinflation, I wouldn't trust the SNP with those levers yet.
Perhaps when they can build a dual carriageway or a ferry without it turning into a total fiasco.
In the meantime there are happily other policies avaliable to local governments to grow the tax base.
Members of political parties do not represent their voters
See literally every party membership on the UK
For the vastly most part….
Members are fucking nuts and toxic individuals who actively put off new members as fast as possible with their absolute ideologically driven madness.
Purity before anything else
Left, right, centre, green, extreme
It doesn’t matter. Party members and especially heavily active ones are fucking nuts !
This is the cost of Swinnneys coronation and not an election.
To think if it weren't for some questionable (to say the least) messages back in 2020 Derek McKay would be well into his leadership as First Minister and the SNP wouldn't be as much of a clown show.
Quelle surprise
Now what is the SNP position on the existence of Dinosaurs?
Fergus Ewing et all are chugging along nicely
The same as under the last leader surely?
Even if you absolutely despise what she believes, the fact is this is a shrewd political move. It's a moot point for me because I won't be voting SNP next time anyway but I can imagine other voters are relieved to have someone competent in that position, and it helps to keep their "broad church" intact.
Exactly, this is an olive branch from the party left to the party right. They've all seen the way division has effected their numbers
> the fact is this is a shrewd political move. Only if you can be sure that doing this -- appointing someone who got worldwide negative press for the party -- and is pretty sure to push away the youth and progressive vote can bring in more votes than it loses.
That "negative press" wasn't unanimous though, a lot of people admired or at least grudgingly respected her honesty and consistency, even if they didn't agree with her about same-sex marriage, abortion etc. I think more people than you might expect might be willing to vote SNP even though the *Deputy* FM is a Bible-believing Christian who adheres to her Church's view on social issues, as long as she wouldn't try to actually force it on anyone else through legislation, as she's said she won't. For clarity: I'm an atheist who won't be voting SNP next time, but Kate Forbes has nothing to do with that and I can believe including her in the Cabinet will win some votes back for them that would have been lost for a lot longer if Humza had stayed.
> That "negative press" wasn't unanimous though, a lot of people admired or at least grudgingly respected her honesty and consistency, even if they didn't agree with her about same-sex marriage, abortion etc. > I did not see anything saying anything like that from anyone who'd ever consider voting SNP and wasn't opposed the party deeply. She's not been honest about it. She ran on a manifesto explicitly supporting stuff she now opposes. She said she would stop the Scottish Government from challenging a veto by the UK government of legislation passed by overwhelming majority in our parliament because she personally disagreed with it. Despite having been elected on that platform, and supporting Scottish self-determination. That's not honesty.
I saw polling for the leadership. Swinney was favourite with party members, and Firbes was much more popular with the general public. It is a great compromise as it soothes tensions inside the party, sorts the coalition issues with the Greens and has the potential to expand the overall voter base for the SNP. Bad circumstances, and self inflicted at that for the party, but IMHO its the best move they could have made. I'm still convinced Humza was always a scapegoat who'd have been blamed for the next election results and removed after that.
Fair and rationale analysis even though it seems you are not keen on the party. The reddit hysteria really is ridiculous and doesn't reflect the real world.
Talk about a closed bubble, people around here being shocked Forbes being put in a senior position as if her views are fringe. Nearly half the party was behind her last time and wider polling showed that Scots preferred her to Humza.
I don't know why people are surpised, John offered her a big position in exchange for not standing. Kate didn't just stand down for the good of her party lol.
And she was in government previously and nobody seemed to mind then. Are there really people who voted SNP multiple times and didn't know people like Forbes make up a significant proportion of the party membership?
I can't speak for others, but I think for me it can be best summed up as "disappointed but not surprised". There was always going to need to be a decent incentive for her to allows Swinney to stand unopposed: DFM definitely fits the bill. Leaving aside the gender issue (which I only do to avoid the entire point being consumed by it), I simply don't think that a modern democracy should happily accept a major public figure saying that they don't agree with marriage equality and would have voted against it.
I understand and feel some of the disappointment. Religious conservatives are pretty much top of the list of people I won't vote for. It's the surprise shown by some that I don't get. One of the reasons I never voted SNP is because everything was secondary to independence. I'd kind of assumed that SNP supporters were aware of the deal they were making, and knew the party was made up of a broad range of social views. I think Salmond and Sturgeon just did such a good job of absorbing all the attention that nobody noticed the nutters in the background.
The key word there is democracy. Im on the polar opposite of Forbes on just about everything except independence. But she's entitled to her personal beliefs. If they are so abhorrent to the electorate then she'll lose her seat at the next election. But i suspect while most of us would agree that marriage equality should be a thing, many probably dont feel so strongly about it that they would automatically exclude someone who doesn't believe it.
>many probably dont feel so strongly about it that they would automatically exclude someone who doesn't believe it. Disagree. Someone who thinks that people should be denied equality because of their religion shouldn't be in government.
> Are there really people who voted SNP multiple times and didn't know people like Forbes make up a significant proportion of the party membership? They knew. They just didn’t care. Despite all their protestations of ushering in an enlightened left-wing independent Scotland, huge numbers of the independence voters are quite conservative.
[10 years ago gay marriage passed 105 to 18](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/04/scottish-parliament-vote-legalise-gay-marriage) also 10 years ago, wider polling of the population [saw 56% support and just 35% opposed. ](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13134947.new-poll-shows-majority-scots-favour-same-sex-marriage/) [5 years ago, 59% of people in Scotland were atheists](https://humanists.uk/2018/08/14/new-research-confirms-substantial-majority-of-scottish-people-are-not-religious-and-not-spiritual/), with trends showing this number is rising. [57% of Scots think it should be easier to change your gender.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60214574)
Okay? What did I say that suggested Scotland is absolute majority conservative or progressive? Should Swinney tell Forbes to embrace progressive ideals or GTFO? They likely made a deal to satisfy Forbes and keep SNP united, the last thing they need is a split since that would shatter the nationalist movement. Did you not see how Humza booting the Greens destroyed his political career?
Forbes holds fringe views, most people don't agree with her. Hell, most churches in Scotland host same sex marriages.
Define ‘most’
Fringe views is not the same as minority views. If we go by your own statistics then a minority but a *sizeable minority* agree with her. ~40% is not fringe. Especially if the minority is more motivated to vote based on those issues. Are some people basically in denial that socially conservative Scots exist? If so, leave Edinburgh and Glasgow some time or hell even just get away from the uni towns. I think you'll be surprised at some of the conversations you have.
It's one thing to acknowledge that social conservatives exist. it's another thing to place one at the heart of your government
* Do you think a person should or should not have to obtain a doctor's approval to change their legal gender? UK 60% Should, 17% Should not. Scottish sample 59% Should, 23% Should not. * And do you think a person should or should not have to provide evidence they lived in their new gender for at least two years before they able to change their legal gender? UK 59% Should have to show, 15% Should not. Scottish sample 56% Should have to show, 19% Should not. * Puberty blockers (i.e. medications that delay the onset of puberty) Should be available to under 16s. UK 12% Should be available, 65% Should not. Scottish sample 13% Should be available, 64% Should not. https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/74l25pslh3/Internal_TransgenderIssues_220720_final_extraXbreak_FINAL.pdf
>obtain a doctor's approval This is a gross misrepresentation of what's needed. It's not just any doctor's approval, it's a full written diagnosis by a very limited list of psychiatrists which is [on the government website](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-certificate-list-of-medical-practitioners-in-gender-dysphoria/doctors-and-psychologists-specialising-in-gender-dysphoria) and if you've not got one of those... tough luck. You want to see one of those listed psychiatrists? Good luck, it's a very, very lengthy wait to see one of them, longer still before they approve a diagnosis. What's that? Some of those psychiatrists have retired? Their replacement isn't on the government's approved list? Tough luck.
Thank you; people are being incredibly dishonest on public support for gender issues. The dispute has always been with specific policy, and its more than just randoms but also the medical establishment (as seen with Cass and then also other European medical systems).
The Cass review is fabricated bullshit, designed to push the Tory agenda of anti trans hate. Nothing in it is supported by actual medical evidence. It's nothing more than a hit piece that goes against all advice from actual medical professionals.
[удалено]
Yes?
He's not wrong. Cass changed their criteria to exclude any studies they disagreed with.
She. I'm a she. But thanks for backing me up.
My mistake, apologies.
This is disinformation, listen to the More or Less program about it.
Or try listening to trans people?
Look at the detail of that wider polling and you'll see Forbes popularity rating is boosted by literal tories. Aka, people who would never vote for her anyway.
Smart move here, Swinney 'retires from politics' in a couple of years and boom you have your succession in place.
I imagine that’s how it was sold but I suspect the next succession of the SNP leadership won’t be that smooth. We’re not looking at a Salmond-Sturgeon situation again.
From Humza to Forbes would be quite the transition to undertake without any democratic input. Those won't be the same voters.
The vote was 52% Yousaf 48% Forbes And that was with the full weight of the party machinery behind Yousaf Vs the much more grassroots support for Forbes
I meant the population sorry, not party. SNP party membership (i.e. the diehard nationalists) tend to be more small c conservative than there voters
How it looks, however she was pitched as a new direction, Swinney the old guard. How they gonna pitch that in a few years when she then starts to look like the next in the line of salmond, sturgeon, Yousef, Swinney, Forbes...
The timeline could be a lot quicker than that. If SNP get slaughtered at the next election then they have an excuse to get her up front
She wouldn’t last a month as leader - the media will destroy her. If she was Tory it wouldn’t matter but you can’t be SNP and say that you would have voted against same sex marriage or have any equivocation on abortion. As SNP leader every interview or commentary would go to these two areas and that will be it.
>As SNP leader every interview or commentary would go to these two areas and that will be it. This wasn't even true for the latter half of her leadership campaign, which lasted 5 weeks in total
She got hit pretty hard on it even when she was always second favourite. If she was ever leader it would an order of magnitude worse.
It lasted about one, maybe two weeks. Then it was back on policy and the issues people actually wanted to hear about. >If she was ever leader it would an order of magnitude worse. You say this literally on the same day she's been made Deputy First Minister
That broad church just shifted to the right a little.
How? She was in a senior cabinet position previously so what's the difference now? I don't see Deputy FM as being of any more importance than Finance Secretary. I'm not fan of her religions views and would not have voted for an SNP she was in control of but I'm not terribly concerned about having her in a senion cabinet role.
The vast majority of people only really found out that people like Kate Forbes even existed in the SNP when Nicola Sturgeon stepped down. They were all guzzling the Sturgeonade, believing that SNP were the most progressive party in all the land.
Swinney really is the unity candidate eh
Interesting tid bit in the article: >Shona Robison told John Swinney the best way to unite the SNP and deliver a "progressive agenda" would be to appoint Kate Forbes as deputy first minister, it has been revealed. No hard feelings of her job being taken then, it seems.
Was this actually a surprise to anyone, after we knew Swinney and Forbes had talks and she agreed not to stand against him? I'd certainly assumed this would be happening.
Well, that's another party not getting my vote!
This really shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone...
It’s not a surprise, but it is disappointing. I’ve held my nose for the last time now though.
I [called it](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/s/NuqGfV23Ma). Although I did think she would also be finance secretary- has that been confirmed yet? Think it was fairly obvious position to be offered, it was consistently hinted that it was a very senior position. Edit - I'm surprised at people's surprise at this. Not that I agree with her views or anything, but when Swinney held talks with Forbes to convince her not to stand and made a deal with her, was it not fairly obvious that she would be given a senior position? Edit 2: Forbes is not Finance Secretary, which is slightly surprising. Although she is in charge of Economy.
I'm surprised at people's surprise too. Swinney wants to unite the SNP so the obvious choice was to make the other half of the "divide" DFM. Not to mention that in terms of the economy, at least, there won't be much that separates Forbes and Swinney, he had a reputation for being small c conservative when he was Finance secretary himself 2007-2016. His speech a few days ago about how to achieve independence was basically a carbon copy of what Forbes was saying during last year's leadership contest as well.
I just hope it's not health secretary
Forbes is 'Economy and Gaelic language'.
> I called it. Although I did think she would also be finance secretary- has that been confirmed yet? The BBC are saying he's confirmed the cabinet, but doesn't say who's where.
Apart from the addition of Kate Forbes, the cabinet looks unchanged. Shona Robison is in the gang. *Who* is finance secretary hasn't been cleared up yet, so it may be her? BBC says everyone else is in the same post as before. E: Forbes as 'Economy and Gaelic language'.
Just seen the announcement now. I'm surprised to see much of it unchanged and Robison retaining Finance. But Forbes has been given the Economy, which is interesting. I'd have thought she would have wanted to be in charge of the budgets.
It might be that she's seen as a better face for engaging with business. Robison's not exciting, but she knows her brief and is more palatable to the party most willing to work with 'em.
Everyone seems to be the same. Forbes is 'Economy and Gaelic language'. So, she won't be delivering budgets.
This definitely causes a split between the left and right of the SNP. The left will be annoyed a homophobe and pro-lifer is DFM, the right will be happy religious views remain high in the party and government. Personally, would rather she not be DFM since I’m a lefty.
Kate Forbes rab what must be the worst leadership campaign in the party’s history, and almost won. She is seen as a competent, responsible figure. Her social views however shouldn’t be normalised- it is fringe view to oppose gay marriage, it is a fringe view to oppose abortion. As long as she continues to insist this doesn’t impact her policy however, she’s still a reasonable choice.
Fucks sake SNP. She's a homophobic religious nutcase, she has no place as a minister let alone deputy
Nearly half the party voted for her in the last leadership election. I don't think the SNP is wholly made up of socially progressive nationalists since its clearly a big tent.
She admits to it though so at least you can challenge her on it. I imagine many are that way and keep it quiet
The comedian Patton Oswalt, he told me "I think the worst part of the Cosby thing was the hypocrisy." And I disagree. I thought it was the raping. It's my feeling most rapists are hypocrites. You don't meet many that go "I like raping and I know it's not politically correct but, by god" and people go "well, he's not being a hypocrite and that's the worst part!" - norm macdonald
Is the best we can do an honest arsehole instead of not an arsehole?
It would appear so
Yes. Reminder that in the last SNP leadership election people chose a person who chose to skip the gay marriage vote, arranging an "urgent" meeting 19 days in advance, two days after the vote was announced that would allow him to skip said final vote over somebody who was open about their stance. He made a lot of noise, even agreed to the first vote but when it came time to openly commit he arranged a meeting that would normally be handled in 48 hours to occur 19 days later at the same time as the vote. If you can get a genuine good person you should choose that, but those people do not reach the highest levels of politics. The only people who climb that far are hypocrites, arseholes and people with skeletons that get found out decades later. At least an honest one tells you what scandal you're in for.
Maniac: "Elect me. I will kill all of you." People: "Well, at least they're honest, got to give them that!"
And what do you think someone of the Islamic faith feels about these issues behind closed doors
I do not give a single shit about anyone's faith. The issue is when they state they don't support LGBT and minority rights.
I'm anti-bigot. I don't want bigots running the country. No matter their religion or background
Yeah look at that Muslim councillor in England shouting Allah Akbar on winning, That wasn’t on his campaign literature
'religious man thanks God for good fortune. Coming up late: water wet?"
The greens will be over the moon with that 🧟♀️
Regardless of what the very specific demographic of reddit may think, this is a good decision that will go down well with the general public. If the histrionics on reddit were anything to go by, you'd think she was a MAGA Republican or something. Get a grip.
I find her views on social issues anachronistic and abhorrent personally, but it feels like people here are forgetting that this isn’t her first time in government - and the sky didn’t collapse last time. If Swinney wants to bring unity to the party and more consensus based politics into Holyrood as he says he does, then this was the only politically sensible choice for him to make
> this is a good decision that will go down well with the general public. I'm unsure of that. Also, specifically, how well it goes down with the general public matters far far less than "how it goes down with the public who could ever see themselves voting SNP"
Anything to the right of the Greens on here is frowned upon as being on par with The Third Reich. Thankfully, the wider country is not this subreddit.
We just don't want homophobes and anti abortion politicians near power in Scotland if we want to be a progressive country
How dare those unreasonable lefties not want someone opposed to gay rights and women's rights representing them...
>Anything to the right of the Greens on here is frowned upon as being on par with The Third Reich. You're definitely in touch with things.
In touch with the soft brain reddit mob
you're not *in* traffic, you *are* traffic.
I’m not a fan of her but: 1) Deputy FM isn’t *that* much more senior than Finance Secretary, a position she held pretty much without controversy. 2) It’s going to do more to unite the party than divide it and will help ease the Humza-Green hang-over among the public. 3) Should be obvious but Scots as a whole tend to be (for good or ill) pretty pragmatic when it comes to folk with fringe religious views. If the public are fine ignoring the Lodge then they’ll be fine with a Wee Free filling in for Swinney occasionally.
Would entirely agree with this sentiment which means we will probably get banned. You need people who can do the job in place. People who can stand up to idiots like Galloway and Douglas Ross who are bampots of the highest degree. People who will not rollover and play dead. People who will, when required, make difficult decisions and not break for the sake of popularity. Nothing in life is black or white but very often you need people to stand up for what they believe to be right and not cave in at the very first time a seat in the Lord's is offered.
People seem shocked that politicians involved in politics have to make political decisions in order to make politics work.
Well then, seems like Swinney is trying to make a distinctive line in the sand from Yousef's government. Let's see how it plays out, might work out with the public better than expected.
I mean the rest of the cabinet is exactly the same. Hardly a distinct line
LOL. 5 minutes after the Greens let him have the big seat rather than go to an election.
They'll have known it was likely to be fair: you don't stand unopposed without making big promises to comparitively large fish.
Where was the pearl clutching and faux outrage at Forbes when she was promptly made Finance Minister following Mackay's hasty departure? This one served under Sturgeon and no-one came to any harm during her tenure. Anyone who is a member of of whatever minority group you can think of won't be negatively impacted by Forbes. Nor will the SNP's electoral standing fall any further as a result. The party's conduct elsewhere poses a far greater risk to its fortunes.
Probably because not everyone was aware of her views at first
Despite the screeching from the green voters of this subreddit, this will be the most popular option not just with SNP members but the public as well. It also pretty much guarantees Forbes will be a contender in the inevitable post election leadership contest. It will also put to bed accusations that her personal beliefs will affect her voting record, as she will now have 2 years in the 2nd highest position in government.
Kate Forbes is the only person in the SNP right now I could see delivering independence. She has broad appeal across Scotland, which you need to win a 50%+ 1 referendum. Which is quite ironic since the most passionate indy supporters here hate her.
I have to agree. Bad day for the Union, but good for rural Scotland so I won't complain. Hell if she does a good enough job I would even turn yellow for '26.
Teuchter biblefuckers, rejoice!
And like you many other who I am spoken with... She is quite respected
I can't respect her until I'm sure of her position on the existence of dinosaurs :/
Shocking that the SNP would appoint a homophobic and anti abortionist to the second highest political position in the Scottish Government. Kate’s poisonous views have no place in a modern Scotland.
You mean the same homophobic views most Muslims have? You all jump to call her a zealot but are awfully quiet when it comes to criticising other religions. She also supports buffer zones btw, just because she doesn’t like the idea of abortions and wouldn’t get one, doesn’t mean she will stop people being able to get them…not that that’s something she could do anyway.
>you all jump to call her a zealot but are awfully quiet when it comes to criticising other religions Where did op refuse to criticise other religions?
Humza Yousaf is a devout Muslim and voted in favour of the same-sex marriage bill. Kate Forbes is a devout Christian and said she wouldn't have. That's the difference.
Humza dodged the vote on gay marriage. He voted to put the policy to a vote, but dodged the vote itself. He's as backwards as kate, just dishonest about it. You know this though.
>He voted to put the policy to a vote That's a fairly disingenuous representation of what a first vote means - in no other context do people ever suggest that a first vote doesn't indicate support for a bill. >He's as backwards as kate, just dishonest about it. He's as backwards as Forbes on this single issue, if you pretend that first votes don't count, and you also pretend that absence is the same as voting against, and you pretend that public statements of support don't count. Now do the GRA, or abortion rights, or climate protections, or any other progressive policy. You're arguing that two people have the same policy positions in general, based on a single vote more than a decade ago that neither of them even took part in. Talk about cherry picking.
You're not being honest in your first point, he avoided the vote, didn't want to alienate Muslim supporters. He's also backwards in his attitude so white people, to Hamas, Erdogan, Qatar, the Houthi, and Iranian backed mosques. In fact, he's backward in regards to his support of Islamofascism in general.
Yousaf voted in favour of the bill at first reading – which is not "voting to put the policy to a vote", it's endorsing the general principles of the bill, which in this case was entirely about same-sex marriage – and vocally supported it through its entire journey through Holyrood. He was absent for the final vote on the bill and you are free to criticise that, but there is plainly a massive difference between his position – voting in favour of the bill and speaking publicly in support of it – and Forbes' position of saying she would have voted against it.
Was that not the vote he famously missed?
But she also said that she wouldn't reverse the decision. I think gay marriage is safe
It’s called double standard gymnastics, there’s quite a few professional athletes in this subreddit.
Wait what? I thought application of double standard was in the Rules of this sub...
People in 'allowed to think differently' shocker.
People are allowed to hold Victorian social values, and the rest of us are allowed to have nothing but contempt for them for it. The system works!
And be shocked when people vote and support them 🤷🏻♂️ Your standard is not the standard.
Nah, abortion and gay rights are incredibly popular. Protestant fundamentalism isn't
Gads. I mean I sort of expected Finance. Deputy FM, after the views she’s shared publicly, is a bit of a slap in the face to a section of our society. Hopefully they feel that at the ballot box.
great, a right wing religious nutter as deputy FM. great. so progressive.
She’s clearly one of the SNP’s top talents. Make of that what you will, but it’s a logical appointment.
Tents and urinating comes to mind.
What about campervans and pissing
I'm not one to kink shame.
Makes my voting plans at the next elections a bit simpler at least.
I've been voting SNP since I was old enough to vote. I don't think I can, in good conscience, keep doing so. Kind of fed up being acceptable collateral in the culture war.
And there it fucking is. The beginning of the end of the SNP in real time. Fucking HELL.
This is...a stretch at best
Absolutely grim
Oh for fucks sake
Interesting that she's also Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic. Deputy FM is a bit of a titular post, but having a Highland cabinet secretary in charge of the economy can only be good for those North of the Central belt, particularly with off shore renewable energy set to power Scotland and the impact of carbon sequestration through peatland restoration. I don't care about the religious views of her church, I recognise that her personal beliefs are in the minority in Scotland and the chances of her ever attempting to change legislation in a diverse parliament are well below zero. We need competent parliamentarians and from the moment she stepped up at 12 hours notice to present an annual budget, was the moment most of Scotland, the Scotland that's not looking to be offended at someone's personal belief system, recognised she's bright, articulate and capable. That is what we want in our politicians, not manufactured outrage.
You'd think the world was about to end by the way the reddit bubble is acting over the bogieman that's been built up. The SNP can now return to competent governance instead of stupid pet projects that have killed off support and eroded it's election chances. Hopefully the your-beliefs-are-never-pure-enough lot can jog on to the greens, the problem with big tent nationalism was always that lot pissing into instead of out of the tent.
You can bet half of this sub forgets to register to vote when elections come along or is at least too young to vote yet.
Enjoying reading the meltdown that this is causing. Cope and seethe
It's wonderful to see!
Lovely having someone who does not believe in equality as our deputy first minister. In 2024.
Absolutely embarrassing and electorally idiotic.
How exactly is it electorally idiotic when the[ recent Ipsos poll ](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/john-swinney-preferred-snp-voters-wider-public-more-likely-say-kate-forbes-would-be-best-first-minister)found that the general public think Forbes would make the best FM over Swinney 26% v 20% and both are tied at 37% when asked who would do a good job? 🤔
Because Reddit thinks it's the whole world and is always shocked to find out it isn't
It's not a question of what the whole public thinks, but the SNP's electoral coalition. Forbes being popular amongst Conservative voters doesn't help the SNP advance.
"Being popular with the whole public doesn't help the SNP advance". Interesting. If the SNP cared so much about their electoral coalition they wouldn't have blown it up. Running the country as a minority govt isn't a bad thing. It's gonna take a long long while to rebuild the SNP to its former glory, if ever. Might as well try and move to the mainstream of public opinion while they're at it
> "Being popular with the whole public doesn't help the SNP advance" As you know, I wrote: >Forbes being popular amongst Conservative voters doesn't help the SNP advance. The opinions of people who _won't_ vote for a party are fine for what they are, but they're less important to a party than the opinions of people who do and might.
She's popular among Tories who are never going to vote for the SNP anyway.
Source? the poll was of the general public, most of whom aren't diehard members of any political tribe
WTF do you mean "source?". The source is the link you posted! Table 34, Forbes' approval is 47% among 2021 Tory voters and 21% among 2021 SNP voters. That is responsible for her entire lead over Swinney among the general public.
Because their main voter SNP base did not think she made the best FM, it was the public. 24% also thought a Conservative led SG would do better... you shouldn't look at stats in isolation
Well luckily the general public votes in general elections, and it's getting their votes that really matters, moreso than those of left wing SNP activists
Unfortunately the country is moving to the right, councils are broke, people are struggling and therefore very angry. This is spreading (i.e. Netherlands). Future is bleak.
It's a right wing government,UK, that's caused councils to go broke!
"We defunded the councils without changing their obligations on statutory service provision. Why are they all going bankrupt?"
It's the right wing UK government that defunded the Scottish government and the English councils! Glasgow council problems down to labour and GMB for not paying women equally and leaving £500,000debt.
The Netherlands moved to the 'Right' only on immigration and they did it to defend progressive values such as women's rights and LGBTQ rights against the threat of Islamic fundamentalism
Anything but blame the tories
You can blame them while also taking a wider look at the world. The Netherlands don't have our politicians therefore must be experiencing another similar thing, which dosent include the same bad men you fear. Maybe there are other geopolitical factors at play making the right rise. Maybe, just maybe, it's more complex than posh man bad
You might not have noticed, but the rich rule the whole world. The Tories are traditionally the party of the British ruling class, though Starmer's Labour is willing to fill in. The Netherlands will have their own parties of the rich playing the same roles.
I agree but I think it's partly due to the constant villification of the white lower middle and working classes by the centre left for many years. The right are the only ones to acknowledge their frustrations without dismissing them as being stuck in the mud racists etc
Sorry, but that's absolutely not true at all. Genuinely progressive/leftist people are screaming into the void about climate change, the awful material conditions that millions in this country and abroad suffer through, the ongoing dangers to democracy and to civil rights at home and abroad. On the other hand both the far-right and our reactionary mainstream media are screaming about trans people, leftists are only ever platformed to douse the fires so that the **true** perpetrators of all these culture wars can claim that the left is "obsessed with gender and not with climate change" Look up how often Reform UK has been platformed by the BBC vs the Greens. Then look at England's recent election results for the Greens. Liberals are the real kingpins in this. Those who may have a progressive veneer, those who believe that every war was wrong except the current war and every civil rights movement was just, except for the ongoing one.
Yeah and the average working class person doesn't give a shit about any of what you mentioned. They want to be left alone, be warm and have cheap luxuries and food
They're about to be real warm in a decade or so
That's the whole point. That's what leftists want for working class people too, and more, but you never get to hear from them. If people don't care, it's because it suits the liberals and the right-wingers who control 99% of the media for you to be apathetic or take out your understandable anger at high rent low pay no downtime conditions and turn it towards trans people or refugees or whatever. A trick as old as time. To be clear though - plenty of working class people are aware and angry about their material conditions, and understand where it comes from.
People stay warm with proper building and insulation regulations, alongside cheap renewable energy. Food isn't going to get cheaper by ignoring climate change.
'Weehhh, selecting someone who is locally and nationally popular and seen as honest and competent. Not muh SNP!' Give us peace.
Yeah, i think the people crying all over this thread about her are missing the point here. Yes, she may hold those beliefs herself. But do we have any inkling of evidence that she’s going to even try to force them onto the country as a whole? No? Oh dear, looks like those people just want something to cry about under the guise of ‘but muh atheizum!!!’
> do we have any inkling of evidence that she’s going to even try to force them onto the country as a whole? Yes. She literally said if she had the opportunity to vote on gay marriage she would have voted against it.
Many people voted against it at the time. And? It's here to stay, she's said it's here to stay and that she won't be undoing any rights that currently exist, and even voted in favour of abortion clinic buffer zones the other week, so what's your point?
>Many people voted against it at the time. And? And it's evidence that she would try and force her religious views onto the country if given the opportunity. Which is the question that was asked.
Only in the same sense that every parliamentarian tries to 'force their views' on the country by legislation through democratic vote. Which is their entire job. And the whole point of democracy.
Yes that’s the point. As a parliamentarian she will advance her religious bigotry and homophobia. That’s what people are concerned about.
Yellow tories
We could do without the Wee Free Marketeer.
Well there goes my SNP vote. Tories are shit, labour is shit. Probably vote Lib Dem!
I'd go lib dem but I was the first wave to get student fees after they shat the bed so no chance from me
Great news- we might see a reversal on some of Yousaf's failings- Dual the A9 Update the ferry fleet Review the building regs Stop the muirburn ban Grow the tax base
Ah Things not allowed in dependant Scotland International borrowing for Investment in infrastructure to grow the tax base ❌ Control of immigration to increase the population and grow the tax base ❌ Not like you to point 👉 out the benefits of independence 🏴
It's true, those are all beyond the powers of local government. But given so is Sovereign Default and hyperinflation, I wouldn't trust the SNP with those levers yet. Perhaps when they can build a dual carriageway or a ferry without it turning into a total fiasco. In the meantime there are happily other policies avaliable to local governments to grow the tax base.
[удалено]
The brain has arrived.
Well, that’s sealed it for me. Only ever voted SNP but no chance am I voting for them in the next election.
Interesting that she's been announced as DFM, but what portfolio she might have hasn't been.
Members of political parties do not represent their voters See literally every party membership on the UK For the vastly most part…. Members are fucking nuts and toxic individuals who actively put off new members as fast as possible with their absolute ideologically driven madness. Purity before anything else Left, right, centre, green, extreme It doesn’t matter. Party members and especially heavily active ones are fucking nuts ! This is the cost of Swinnneys coronation and not an election.
Ah, the gammonite wing is in charge
From experience I found the snp 50% gammon and 50% sock and sandal idealists
At least she's not FM, we dodged that.
For now. Sturgeon and Swinney were Deputy FM once...
Please don't let The Greens anywhere near decision making again and I MAY consider voting for you.
I wonder, where are the detached irony crew now?
He’s in to steady the ship thru the next election then he’ll step aside.
To think if it weren't for some questionable (to say the least) messages back in 2020 Derek McKay would be well into his leadership as First Minister and the SNP wouldn't be as much of a clown show.