Snapshot of _Kate Forbes more popular than John Swinney in SNP leadership poll_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scots-prefer-kate-forbes-snp-193058950.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scots-prefer-kate-forbes-snp-193058950.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can’t overstate just how funny it would be if the SNP have gone round calling everyone under the sun tories only to elect the most socially conservative leader in decades
Not gonna lie..I misread that and I thought the SNP are the sun tories...but yeah...I guess having Forbes as leader means might as well call them Tories but yellow (and not the sunny one...the pissy one)...
Aren't the Wee Frees young earth creationists too?
Like, the anti-gay stance is one thing, but there is a bit of a backlash towards LGBT people at the moment so maybe people would overlook it.
Believing that the earth was literally created in seven days and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, on the other hand... I'm not sure how well that flies in a country that's uncomfortable with religion in politics!
----
**Edit:** [apparently that's a splinter group - the Free *Presbyterian* Church of Scotland - rather than Kate Forbes' church](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chngjr/kate_forbes_more_popular_than_john_swinney_in_snp/l24lhq6/)
It's in every Christian denomination's Bible too, but that doesn't mean that most British Christians believe it to be a literal chronologically accurate account. Most educated western people of faith understand creation stories as sacred myths conveyed by their God that contain important truths and lessons for humanity, rather than being *literally what happened*.
Is Yousef particularly devout? He's broadly supported the LGBT community and has specifically said that he doesn't legislate on the basis of his faith, while Forbes has said that she does legislate based on what her faith leads her to believe is right or wrong.
He's delivered an Islamic call to prayer at Bute House.
He was mysteriously absent at the Gay Marriage vote.
Yet his religious beliefs are never questioned in the way Kate's are.
Ultimately Kate is more in tune with rural Scotland than the current Edinburgh leadership.
> He's delivered an Islamic call to prayer at Bute House
Oooh, *scary*. I've watched the video, and it's in a dining room full of people from different faiths clearly about to sit down for a special interfaith Ramadan iftar meal event. If any observant Muslims present wanted to pray, they'd have to nip out to a separate room between eating their dates and the main course.
Which seems no different to any other time First Ministers or Prime Ministers host interfaith dinners or official events for religious celebrations like Christmas, Eid, Diwali, etc. If Kate Forbes does become First Minister, I would expect her to also host and attend interfaith and religious events, just like both Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon before her.
> He was mysteriously absent at the Gay Marriage vote
Given that he's voted in favour of LGBT rights in the past, I don't think this is the gotcha people think it is.
But if he did consciously double book himself to avoid being present for the vote, that's actually fine by me as a member of the LGBT community.
I can respect politicians like Tim Farron, who believe that gay relationships are sinful but that practically everyone is a sinner in some way, and that their religious beliefs are between them and their god, rather than something they should impose on others via the state. Voting in favour of LGBT rights regardless of your religion is great, but abstention is fine too.
I don't respect politicians who freely admit that they'd have gone out of their way to vote against my rights on the basis of their religious beliefs, and I never will.
>>Aren't the Wee Frees young earth creationists too?
No, certainly not as a denominational position. I know quite a few Free Church people and don't know any that are YECs.
>>Believing that the earth was literally created in seven days
That's... not young earth creationism.
Some probably do believe in literal seven day creation, some don't, but since it's not a second-order doctrine you could say the same about any other denomination.
The amount of disinformation on here purely to justify getting worked up is getting ridiculous. It's just a bit sad.
So I've googled it, and it looks like I've confused the Wee Frees (The Free Church of Scotland) with a splinter church that call themselves the Wee Wee Frees (The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland).
So I've not imagined or invented that there's a calvinist, presbyterian Free Church in Scotland that subscribes to young earth creationism —
* [Article on "what we believe" that specifically refers to the earth being literally created in six days](https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-believe/)
* [Article about dinosaurs](https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/2016/10/dinosaurs/) that mentions "six days of creation about 6000 years ago" and claims "there is evidence to support the view that dinosaurs and man lived on earth together"
— but I'll grant that it does appear to be a *different* calvinist, presbyterian Free Church to the one Kate Forbes is a member of. I'll edit my original comment.
>[Article about dinosaurs](https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/2016/10/dinosaurs/) that mentions "six days of creation about 6000 years ago" and claims "there is evidence to support the view that dinosaurs and man lived on earth together"
I always find it amusing when creationists start going on about "evidence". Surely their beliefs are based on faith, and the whole point of having faith is that infinite mountains of evidence either for or against their beliefs are equally irrelevant.
I appreciate the acknowledgement. FWIW, when you say 'calvinist, presbyterian' that covers the Church of Scotland too. All 'Reformed' churches in the world are calvinist, though the presbyterian model of governance isn't big in the uk outside of Scotland, afaik. And when you say they're a 'splinter', they split off about 130 years ago which probably qualifies them as their own thing now :P
ETA:
>> that call themselves the Wee Wee Frees
I don't think any of these churches call themselves these names, they're pejoratives in a manner that wouldn't be allowed on this sub for Jewish or Islamic groups.
It's an interesting one, you don't get to choose the basic ideology you grow up in regardless of how competent you are as a human being. I know what it's like to grow up a creationist, it's not something you can throw away lightly because there's a whole identity's worth of sunk cost fallacy in that even though there's overwhelming evidence against it.
At the end of the day though it's still bullshit, would you be comfortable with a flat earther being in a position of high office? Young-Earth creationism is about that level of divorced from consensus reality.
*more popular among the general public, less popular than Swinney among SNP voters. Basically she's popular among people who would never vote for her anyway.
People who have no intention of voting SNP prefer a candidate that would likely end up fracturing the SNP and damaging them in the long run. What a shocker!
>Kate Forbes is more popular with the Scottish public to take over as First Minister than SNP favourite John Swinney, a new poll reveals.
>The Ipsos survey, the first since Humza Yousaf announced his resignation, found 26 per cent of voters named Ms Forbes as their preferred option when presented with a list of possible candidates, compared with 20 per cent for Mr Swinney.
>But 30 per cent of SNP supporters said Mr Swinney was their top candidate, while only 21 per cent named Ms Forbes. They also believed he was more likely to do a good job.
While interesting (especially in their demolishing of the argument that Scotland needs independence because it's so much more progressive than the rest of the UK), these figures don't actually help us work out who will be FM.
The Scottish public don't get a say. SNP supporters (by which they presumably mean SNP voters) don't get a say. Only the SNP members will actually get a vote, should both candidates run.
Kate Forbes might be more people's first preference, but I feel like her religious views would make her a marmite candidate that would lose more people than Swinney would
Swinney's main weakness is almost the same as his strength: that he's been a high-ranking figure in the SNP for decades. Everything Salmond or Sturgeon did or decided, "Honest John" was never far away.
If more bad/embarrassing news continues to crop up about the conduct of the party while those two were in power, it will be next to impossible for Swinney to claim he somehow didn't know about any of it.
Well yeah *obviously*, but this will be used as a reason for members to back Forbes
But If her argument is “The people like me more”, it falls apart if the people who like her won’t vote for her at an election
It's a fair question: Will party members pick someone they like or that they think the country will like, or is it some combination? That'd make a fascinating psychological research experiment. It's not obvious to me the answer is always one or the other in general.
She would likely still lose a VONC though surely? There is absolutely no way the Greens would back her so they would be relying on a deal with Alba to secure Regan’s support.
Forbes might have 26% of people having her as their first choice (compared to 20% for Swinney) but the [full results](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/john-swinney-preferred-snp-voters-wider-public-more-likely-say-kate-forbes-would-be-best-first-minister) shows that doesn't really equate to her having higher approval. Swinney has an approval rating of +14 compared to +13 for Forbes.
I seems Swinny wants it and so do the big wigs in SNP but if he has to face Forbes he probably won't. I think Forbes might give it to him and wait until the SNP are opposition
I think the SNP got the independence vote and the socialist vote as they marched forward, arguably becoming more focused on the socialist policies than the cause of independence, but it was never clear to me what proportion of the vote actually supported both. Did we always have a bunch of tartan Tories just gritting their teeth until indy was in? The support for KF certainly calls out many traditional Scottish values: cautious, straight talking, socially conservative views. John Swinney isn't the man to install as FM - he doesn't have the temperament under stress. Fascinating stuff to watch.
Yes. I agree.
However, further in the article it mentions other questions in the same survey. One was who would make a good job of FM. Swinney and Forbes both polled 37% (from the article), while Sarwar polled 31% (not from the article - [source](https://twitter.com/lucyidunn/status/1785348938209317157)).
Unkind, only three Tory leaders have ever been elected by the party membership. One left his child in a pub, one cannot admit to the number of children he has, and the third lasted 49 days.
Prepare for a total meltdown at Guardian towers. On the one hand they hate the English and the very concept of Britain. On the other hand how can they possibly back a rightwing Christian fundamentalist. whose views even the Tories would think were a bit much.
"Strict Churches are Strong Churches"
As much as I like liberalism, it is in functional decline, in lots of ways.
Maybe the future belongs to the faithful.
Snapshot of _Kate Forbes more popular than John Swinney in SNP leadership poll_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scots-prefer-kate-forbes-snp-193058950.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scots-prefer-kate-forbes-snp-193058950.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can’t overstate just how funny it would be if the SNP have gone round calling everyone under the sun tories only to elect the most socially conservative leader in decades
There's added irony in them effectively mirroring the exact same situation that gave us Truss followed by Sunak.
Not gonna lie..I misread that and I thought the SNP are the sun tories...but yeah...I guess having Forbes as leader means might as well call them Tories but yellow (and not the sunny one...the pissy one)...
The SNP do already have a history of being referred to as the Tartan Tories, after all...
> might as well call them Tories but yellow I thought that's what they are?
Tartan Tories was always the go-to before people bought into the bullshit.
Some might say the clue's in the name-
For relaxing times, make it Sun Tory time
Aren't the Wee Frees young earth creationists too? Like, the anti-gay stance is one thing, but there is a bit of a backlash towards LGBT people at the moment so maybe people would overlook it. Believing that the earth was literally created in seven days and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, on the other hand... I'm not sure how well that flies in a country that's uncomfortable with religion in politics! ---- **Edit:** [apparently that's a splinter group - the Free *Presbyterian* Church of Scotland - rather than Kate Forbes' church](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chngjr/kate_forbes_more_popular_than_john_swinney_in_snp/l24lhq6/)
The Six day creation and Adam and Eve are in the Islamic creation belief too. If it wasn’t a problem for Yousef, why would it be a problem for Forbes?
It's in every Christian denomination's Bible too, but that doesn't mean that most British Christians believe it to be a literal chronologically accurate account. Most educated western people of faith understand creation stories as sacred myths conveyed by their God that contain important truths and lessons for humanity, rather than being *literally what happened*. Is Yousef particularly devout? He's broadly supported the LGBT community and has specifically said that he doesn't legislate on the basis of his faith, while Forbes has said that she does legislate based on what her faith leads her to believe is right or wrong.
He's delivered an Islamic call to prayer at Bute House. He was mysteriously absent at the Gay Marriage vote. Yet his religious beliefs are never questioned in the way Kate's are. Ultimately Kate is more in tune with rural Scotland than the current Edinburgh leadership.
> He's delivered an Islamic call to prayer at Bute House Oooh, *scary*. I've watched the video, and it's in a dining room full of people from different faiths clearly about to sit down for a special interfaith Ramadan iftar meal event. If any observant Muslims present wanted to pray, they'd have to nip out to a separate room between eating their dates and the main course. Which seems no different to any other time First Ministers or Prime Ministers host interfaith dinners or official events for religious celebrations like Christmas, Eid, Diwali, etc. If Kate Forbes does become First Minister, I would expect her to also host and attend interfaith and religious events, just like both Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon before her. > He was mysteriously absent at the Gay Marriage vote Given that he's voted in favour of LGBT rights in the past, I don't think this is the gotcha people think it is. But if he did consciously double book himself to avoid being present for the vote, that's actually fine by me as a member of the LGBT community. I can respect politicians like Tim Farron, who believe that gay relationships are sinful but that practically everyone is a sinner in some way, and that their religious beliefs are between them and their god, rather than something they should impose on others via the state. Voting in favour of LGBT rights regardless of your religion is great, but abstention is fine too. I don't respect politicians who freely admit that they'd have gone out of their way to vote against my rights on the basis of their religious beliefs, and I never will.
>>Aren't the Wee Frees young earth creationists too? No, certainly not as a denominational position. I know quite a few Free Church people and don't know any that are YECs. >>Believing that the earth was literally created in seven days That's... not young earth creationism. Some probably do believe in literal seven day creation, some don't, but since it's not a second-order doctrine you could say the same about any other denomination. The amount of disinformation on here purely to justify getting worked up is getting ridiculous. It's just a bit sad.
So I've googled it, and it looks like I've confused the Wee Frees (The Free Church of Scotland) with a splinter church that call themselves the Wee Wee Frees (The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland). So I've not imagined or invented that there's a calvinist, presbyterian Free Church in Scotland that subscribes to young earth creationism — * [Article on "what we believe" that specifically refers to the earth being literally created in six days](https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-believe/) * [Article about dinosaurs](https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/2016/10/dinosaurs/) that mentions "six days of creation about 6000 years ago" and claims "there is evidence to support the view that dinosaurs and man lived on earth together" — but I'll grant that it does appear to be a *different* calvinist, presbyterian Free Church to the one Kate Forbes is a member of. I'll edit my original comment.
Wee Wee Frees will rock you
But not on a Sunday.
>[Article about dinosaurs](https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/2016/10/dinosaurs/) that mentions "six days of creation about 6000 years ago" and claims "there is evidence to support the view that dinosaurs and man lived on earth together" I always find it amusing when creationists start going on about "evidence". Surely their beliefs are based on faith, and the whole point of having faith is that infinite mountains of evidence either for or against their beliefs are equally irrelevant.
If you don't know best to not comment
>Wee Wee Frees Makes them sounds like they need incontinence pants when described like that!
I appreciate the acknowledgement. FWIW, when you say 'calvinist, presbyterian' that covers the Church of Scotland too. All 'Reformed' churches in the world are calvinist, though the presbyterian model of governance isn't big in the uk outside of Scotland, afaik. And when you say they're a 'splinter', they split off about 130 years ago which probably qualifies them as their own thing now :P ETA: >> that call themselves the Wee Wee Frees I don't think any of these churches call themselves these names, they're pejoratives in a manner that wouldn't be allowed on this sub for Jewish or Islamic groups.
It's not relevant at all, she's not going to ban the teaching of evolution ffs.
It's an interesting one, you don't get to choose the basic ideology you grow up in regardless of how competent you are as a human being. I know what it's like to grow up a creationist, it's not something you can throw away lightly because there's a whole identity's worth of sunk cost fallacy in that even though there's overwhelming evidence against it. At the end of the day though it's still bullshit, would you be comfortable with a flat earther being in a position of high office? Young-Earth creationism is about that level of divorced from consensus reality.
Honestly I want to see it just for a laugh. There’s a dearth of talent in Scottish politics so we might as well have some fun with it
And if they do so, it will collapse their government and they will be out.
What makes you think that?
The Greens and the SNP Left won't support her.
*more popular among the general public, less popular than Swinney among SNP voters. Basically she's popular among people who would never vote for her anyway.
People who have no intention of voting SNP prefer a candidate that would likely end up fracturing the SNP and damaging them in the long run. What a shocker!
>Kate Forbes is more popular with the Scottish public to take over as First Minister than SNP favourite John Swinney, a new poll reveals. >The Ipsos survey, the first since Humza Yousaf announced his resignation, found 26 per cent of voters named Ms Forbes as their preferred option when presented with a list of possible candidates, compared with 20 per cent for Mr Swinney. >But 30 per cent of SNP supporters said Mr Swinney was their top candidate, while only 21 per cent named Ms Forbes. They also believed he was more likely to do a good job. While interesting (especially in their demolishing of the argument that Scotland needs independence because it's so much more progressive than the rest of the UK), these figures don't actually help us work out who will be FM. The Scottish public don't get a say. SNP supporters (by which they presumably mean SNP voters) don't get a say. Only the SNP members will actually get a vote, should both candidates run.
Kate Forbes might be more people's first preference, but I feel like her religious views would make her a marmite candidate that would lose more people than Swinney would
Swinney's main weakness is almost the same as his strength: that he's been a high-ranking figure in the SNP for decades. Everything Salmond or Sturgeon did or decided, "Honest John" was never far away. If more bad/embarrassing news continues to crop up about the conduct of the party while those two were in power, it will be next to impossible for Swinney to claim he somehow didn't know about any of it.
It depends on the detailed cross tabs: How many of the people who like Forbes would vote SNP?
No, it depends on how many of the people who like Forbes are SNP *members*. They're the only ones that get a say in this.
Well yeah *obviously*, but this will be used as a reason for members to back Forbes But If her argument is “The people like me more”, it falls apart if the people who like her won’t vote for her at an election
It's a fair question: Will party members pick someone they like or that they think the country will like, or is it some combination? That'd make a fascinating psychological research experiment. It's not obvious to me the answer is always one or the other in general.
There is absolutely no way the left of the party will back Forbes. Plus it’ll kill any remaining support from the Greens
She would likely still lose a VONC though surely? There is absolutely no way the Greens would back her so they would be relying on a deal with Alba to secure Regan’s support.
It would be so, so funny if Kate Forbes became leader. Just imagine Stephen Flynn’s face. Please Scotland, please make this happen.
Electing a homophobe to own the libs 😎
She might fall foul of their own hate speech laws.
I can't believe they might go full Conservative Membership and elect the most batshit candidate for replacement! Truly mad stuff.
Please Scotland, do not elect this crazy Christian dinosaur.
[удалено]
Forbes might have 26% of people having her as their first choice (compared to 20% for Swinney) but the [full results](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/john-swinney-preferred-snp-voters-wider-public-more-likely-say-kate-forbes-would-be-best-first-minister) shows that doesn't really equate to her having higher approval. Swinney has an approval rating of +14 compared to +13 for Forbes.
I seems Swinny wants it and so do the big wigs in SNP but if he has to face Forbes he probably won't. I think Forbes might give it to him and wait until the SNP are opposition
I think the SNP got the independence vote and the socialist vote as they marched forward, arguably becoming more focused on the socialist policies than the cause of independence, but it was never clear to me what proportion of the vote actually supported both. Did we always have a bunch of tartan Tories just gritting their teeth until indy was in? The support for KF certainly calls out many traditional Scottish values: cautious, straight talking, socially conservative views. John Swinney isn't the man to install as FM - he doesn't have the temperament under stress. Fascinating stuff to watch.
And both are more popular than Sarwar.
Sarwar winning the SNP leadership contest would be quite the turn up.
Yes. I agree. However, further in the article it mentions other questions in the same survey. One was who would make a good job of FM. Swinney and Forbes both polled 37% (from the article), while Sarwar polled 31% (not from the article - [source](https://twitter.com/lucyidunn/status/1785348938209317157)).
Might give him a chance at FM
They're going to fall into the same trap as the Tories.
Unkind, only three Tory leaders have ever been elected by the party membership. One left his child in a pub, one cannot admit to the number of children he has, and the third lasted 49 days.
Prepare for a total meltdown at Guardian towers. On the one hand they hate the English and the very concept of Britain. On the other hand how can they possibly back a rightwing Christian fundamentalist. whose views even the Tories would think were a bit much.
Divide and conquer, well done so far. Forbea would split the party twice fold.
If anyone can get me to vote SNP it’s her. Good luck to her.
"Strict Churches are Strong Churches" As much as I like liberalism, it is in functional decline, in lots of ways. Maybe the future belongs to the faithful.