The new Scotland

Just over a year ago Kate Forbes was narrowly beaten in the SNP leadership election, in large part because many colleagues and commentators turned upon her following coverage of her (long established) religious conservative convictions on issues of gender and sex. With Humza Yousaf having been forced to resign following the collapse of his agreement with the Scottish Greens, Forbes seemed poised as the frontrunner in the upcoming leadership contest. But news soon broke, amidst negative reactions to her possible return in the media and party, that she would not be standing. What had happened?

The whole piece is well worth reading as a telling comment on what already seems like the inevitable failure of contrived secular cultures.

The point is hammered home at length: “Forbes represents an authentic strain of rural Scottish presbyterianism. But she cannot successfully reconcile the moral strictures of the Free Church with the values of contemporary urban Scotland in all its diversity and dynamism.”

It’s all rather impressive, just as long as you don’t think about it too hard. Why, for example, is Yousaf, a committed Muslim, seen as a good representative of liberal modernity, whilst Forbes, who belongs to the non-conformist Protestant tradition so integral to British liberalism, is considered a reactionary symbol? Humza Yousaf’s religious community is no more accepting of homosexuality than Forbes’, and though Yousaf claims to support gay marriage (an issue neither politician is likely to make policy on in future), he was mysteriously and conveniently absent when it came time to vote on it.