The Disagreers in the SNP

What does Kate Forbes - and the criticism of her - represent?

The SNP has become a fascinating study in basket-case political parties. They’re not unique, necessarily, just the contemporary example. The Conservatives demonstrated ultimate basket-casery during last summer, of course, transitioning us through three Prime Ministers in the space of just weeks.

The SNP leadership campaign has become as bitter as SNP politics has been for years, if not decades. Experiences of the vitriol of the referendum campaign in 2014 have come flooding back. On Friday’s Times Radio Breakfast, I interviewed Kirsten Oswald, SNP MP for East Renfrewshire and former Deputy Leader of the Westminster group of SNP MPs. The clip went viral. At first, those commenting on the interview were largely analytical, which is always welcome. The basic premise of the five minutes was to hear her prove, establish or otherwise evidence her claim that, under Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership, Scotland was “considerably closer” to independence. Ms Oswald was largely found wanting on this front, according to most of those who replied. However, a couple of others caught my eye. First, this from “coyjim” who wasn’t backward in coming forward: “Calum you are another unionist dictator using the psychological technique of Framing [sic] you are only convincing yourself not the people of Scotland who you want to keep oppressing.” I am, as you are aware, notorious for never being happier than when oppressing the people of Scotland. My second notable fan is Hugh McSween: “A disgrace to his name, many McDonalds [sic] died for Scottish independence.” There were countless others but these two were my favourite. Support for their cause is not something I tend to take issue with. But people who can’t stand flag-bearers for their cause facing scrutiny are people with whom I do not want to be associated.

So then from the online trolls to the politicians themselves who, this week, have indulged in a feeding frenzy that only a leadership contest presents. Kate Forbes, the finance secretary who has cut short her maternity leave in order to run to be the next SNP leader, has borne the brunt of scrutiny, judgement, intolerance and abuse since telling The Scotsman, and several broadcasters, that she would not have voted for Holyrood's equal marriage bill: “I would have voted, as a matter of conscience, along the lines of mainstream teaching in most major religions that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I would have respected and defended the democratic choice that was made. It is a legal right now and I am a servant of democracy. I am not a dictator.”

Part of what you're seeing in the criticism of Kate Forbes is the SNP attempting to reclaim its party discipline and make an example of someone with whom they can find a disagreement that is, largely, socially or culturally palatable. Remember, the rebellion over the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was unprecedented, highlighting the new, erratic, ungovernable nature of a freshly factional party. Politics within a party is, surely, about disagreement, while driving at a common purpose. But the SNP has, for a long time, bucked that by being purely about independence and marching to the Salmond-Sturgeon beat: step out of line, and be damned. As independence has slipped further out of reach by stalling at every juncture - a full-on referendum, a Supreme Court challenge, an ill-judged “de-facto referendum” half-baked plan - members need a new enemy in the interests of unity. Disagreers - even from within the party - can be that enemy. Fighting the disagreers gives common enemy and gives SNP MSPs, MPs and members a sense of unity that they’ve been lacking and thirsting for. Kate Forbes is experiencing this in full force.

Another part is that the enemy they have chosen to unite against is Christianity itself. Census data - for England and Wales only, given the omnishambles operation that was the Scotland census - shows that, for the first time, Christianity is in the minority. It is more fashionable than ever to be against Christianity and what it stands for. Politicians are opportunists - almost by definition, in fact. So to be anti-Forbes is to go with the mainstream. To be Kate Forbes is to stand for a belief, to acknowledge that governance is bigger than one person and to accept that faith is the most crucial of guides for oneself. Are we seriously asking for politicians without committed convictions? Isn’t that why we’ve ended up in innumerable moral distresses in recent and living memory? We have been crying out for a moral compass. Kate Forbes has one.

Former First Minister Alex Salmond told me on Times Radio last weekend that he made the vote on equal marriage a “conscience vote.” He knew that there were those in his party who couldn’t, in good conscience, vote for it. He said he also knew it would pass and so it was no particular concern how various consciences, principles and, indeed, faiths directed individuals to vote.

A political party which rejects someone based on their faith is not functioning effectively whatsoever. See also: a society that rejects someone based on their faith. We all have the right to disagree with one another, as is being demonstrated plainly this week. But utter rejection is nonsensical. A politician with the guiding light of faith, matched with the courage to demonstrate it in the face of a bitter party riven by rejection and no sense of direction is the kind of politician for whom we have been crying out.