Kate Forbes MSP: Favourite to Win SNP Leadership Race – A Credible Christian?editor
Kate Forbes has said having children outside of marriage is “wrong”
The finance secretary, who is standing to replace Nicola Sturgeon as SNP leader, made the comments in an interview today.
“It’s something that I would seek to avoid, for me personally, but it doesn’t fuss me, or put me up or down, the choices that other people make,” she told Sky News.
The MSP had earlier refused to quit the leadership race after facing a backlash for her opposition to same-sex marriage.
Martyn Day, an SNP MP who backed Forbes to be leader, described her comments about marriage as “a real shame”.
He added: “She’s making it impossible for people to support her myself included.”
Forbes, a committed member of the Free Church of Scotland, has already lost the support of several SNP MSPs and MPs who had supported her campaign for the party leadership.
Asked about the last 24 hours, Forbes said she thought it had brought to light a “fascinating question” at the heart of Scottish political discourse: “What does liberalism mean?”
“Have we become so illiberal that we cannot have these discussions or some people are beyond the pale?”, she told STV News.
The Scottish Greens have also warned a power-sharing deal at Holyrood between the two parties would be “compromised” if Forbes became First Minister.
“We have a Bute House agreement. That’s the cooperation agreement between the Greens and SNP,” Ross Greer told Times Radio.
The MSP continued: “The Bute House agreement includes a commitment to see through the gender recognition reform bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the Scottish Parliament with yes votes from all five parties.
“So anybody who can’t commit to seeing through these commitments, is compromising the Bute House agreement.”
“Any candidate for First Minister, the Greens would need to see unequivocal support for LGBTQ rights, because we have more of that coming up on the parliamentary agenda this session, including a ban on so-called Conversion therapy that the Greens wrote into the programme for government.”
Greer, who is also a committed Christian, said: “I respect other Christians who take a different point of view. But I absolutely hold to the idea that our state, the government, should treat everybody equally.
“I respect that other churches may disagree with my church. The Church of Scotland does conduct same sex marriages, the church that Kate Forbes is a member of does not. I respectfully disagree with that. But as respectfully, I object strongly to the idea that we should use government to prevent people entering into same sex marriage if they want to.”
Finance secretary Forbes was believed to be an early frontrunner in the race to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as SNP leader and First Minister.
But the evangelical Christian’s comments on equal marriage have triggered a backlash amongst her allies.
Richard Lochhead, the just transition minister, indicated early support for her – but backtracked after the gay rights row.
He said: “I welcomed my colleague Kate Forbes’ decision to join the SNP leadership contest given her talents and felt it would give us a real contest – new ideas and a new approach that we desperately need.
“However, I agree we can’t have a Party Leader who’d vote against same sex marriage.” Source…
Either having children outside marriage is offensive to God or it’s not. Or is it only offensive if Christians believe that?
Either God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman only, for life, or He did not. Or is God OK with “equal marriage” – the fact that Kate Forbes is using the language of the enemies of the natural moral law, speaks for itself.
Some reports believe she has now ruled herself out by expressing her own beliefs, however timidly no matter the reassurances that nothing will change as a result of her Christian beliefs; she has yet to learn the extent of the evil about which Christ warned, that as the world hated Him, so it will hate those who follow Him.
So, what do you think – does Kate Forbes stand a chance against her Muslim rival for the post – Humza Yousaf? Depends, I suppose on whether journalists hound him to explain and defend the teachings of Islam. Will be an interesting few weeks ahead. Your thoughts.
From what I’ve just read in a daily paper – if it is true – Forbes seems to be one of these ‘I think (whatever evil) is wrong, but I won’t impose my views on anyone else, or work to stop that evil’ type of Christian. Politics is full off them, across all parties. The muslim candidate will never be asked about his views on moral issues, because that would be ‘Islamophobic’.
Precisely, Westminsterfly! How many times have we seen Catholics (or even Christians, more generally) telling us how they “personally” are opposed to this or that, but that since we live in a “free country,” they don’t wish to impose their beliefs on others. This is relativistic nonsense. Either something is an immutable truth or it is not.
Geraldine Ferraro and Mario Cuomo, supposedly Catholics in good standing, fabricated this position from whole cloth in the 80s when they promoted the ridiculous idea that you can be a good Catholic and still be in favor of abortion “rights”. Of course, since that time, Pelosi and Biden and a cast of other usual suspects have tried to foist this idea on us. And the bishops and many of the clergy are complicit in not correcting these wayward souls. In fact, I contend that it — like other heresies, such as the “internal forum” to allow adulterers to go to Holy Communion — is contagious. I would go so far as to say a large portion of the world’s 1.3 billion Catholics, especially in the first world developed countries, agree with this. After all, as Francis infamously said (and just doubled down on it last week), “who am I to judge?”
It’s a mess that only God will be able to sort out, in His time. Meanwhile, when Francis dies or steps down, keep in mind that an inordinately large number of members of the College of Cardinals are Francis appointees. Try not to think about that before you lay your head on your pillow at night. . .
Marinaeo I doubt if any of us on here think that their will be a real Holy Father if the World is still here after Bergoglio. You are certainly correct as far as your Lukewarm Statements on Politicians are concerned ,there is noway that Atheists or Marxists will give way to suit Christian values.
Westminsterfly and Marinaio,
I agree about the relativism in these blind politicians. It was the same conversation that we had before one of the last elections, when people wanted us to vote for the Scottish Family Party but their website showed the very same position on abortion as every “pro-life” politician – that in “exceptional cases” they supported it.
Such cowardice. I’m sure they lost lots of votes because of that – I would never vote for a supposedly Christian Party which did not completely uphold the moral law.
I do keep thinking about the large number of Francis-appointed cardinals and how that must surely mean another awful pope when Francis dies. But then, I remember someone saying on this blog before, that “man proposes but God disposes”. He is in charge and can work a miracle for us at the next conclave.
Humza Yousaf is the front runner now. Forbes has shot herself in the foot. Being equivocal, she has lost the “woke” vote, and it is a large one in the SNP, and has failed to stand up for Christian views. Cowardly or an attempt to be diplomatic? It does not matter, it is a fail. Running with the fox and hunting with the hounds is soon spotted. So like any other politician one may believe what they say only as far as the next interview. Ash Regan may be a bit more principled but that remains to be seen. Anyway, Ms Regan is not wanted by the clique and is sensibly standing back from interviews at the moment.
That’ll be so they can say that Scotland has its first Muslim First Minister. He is dreadful, too. He’ll be Nicola Sturgeon in a suit or maybe a kilt if he’s trying to pretend to be soooooo Scottish LOL!
Your wish is my command…
LOL! That’s a great photo!
It was quite funny watching the STV news earlier, when the TV presenter said it would be a headliner’s dream if Ash Regan announced her candidacy tomorrow – tomorrow being Ash Wednesday, LOL! She said she would be standing but not announcing tomorrow. It will be interesting to hear her principles.
I personally wish that their was no Vote for any Scottish Parliament Leader. The Worst thing that ever happened to this Country AKA Politics was Devolution . As for the Greens one look at Wee Patrick Harvie would and should be enough to have that Reprobate Temple in Edinburgh closed for Eternity.
Their is no chance of anyone with even Principles never mind Christian ones being Elected as a Leader of The Rotten S.N.P.
Here she is – the full interview on Scotland Today, first time in YEARS that I have tuned into the mainstream news, due to the Covid brainwashing exercise… In terms of tying herself up in knots, she is Nicola Sturgeon Mark 2!
“My church’s position is certainly irrelevant in all this.” He’s tying her up in knots because she is trying to walk a tightrope that cannot be walked. She is, as we say in the Navy, “waffling”.
Here we go again – these politicians just cannot tell the truth. They are so anxious to get into power that they can’t see the wood for the trees. On the TV news, her campaign manager was caught coming out of the parliament building and cornered by a journalist who asked if he was going to continue to support her campaign but he replied over and over that he was going to be speaking to her about it later today. So, the answer is “obviously not”.
She seems determined to stick it out for a bit longer but what a terribly weak character she has shown herself to be, already.
I think we need to make certain allowances for Kate Forbes. She’s not a Catholic and has probably received a generally poor education, with very little critical thinking skills being taught. She’s walking a tightrope and is trying, albeit with limited success, to get on in politics whilst being somewhat true to her beliefs.
What this whole sorry episode shows is how rotten politics is to the core and how utterly godless Scottish society is and how much of a cesspit politics is.
Where are the bishops in all of this? Surely they should be issuing some sort of statement in support of Kate Forbes, given the utterly ridiculous criticism and name calling she’s receiving on Twitter.
That is so right – where ARE the bishops in all of this? Too busy hunting down faithful priests like Father Dunn by the looks of it.
I take your point about her being young and not that well educated in critical thinking, but she must have known that she would be hammered by the media hacks over her religious beliefs. She’s a “wee Free” for goodness sake, LOL! They’re so strict about the moral issues (thank God).
If only she would turn it all around, make another campaign video to say that she realises she was wrong to say what she did about gay marriage and abortion earlier but now she wants to clearly say that these evils are offensive to God and cannot be supported. If she doesn’t then get the votes she needs, at least she will have done the right thing.
I can’t disagree with anything you have written.
Actually, come to think of it, where are the Catholic MSPs in this? Where is John Mason MSP? You know you’re truly living in cloud cuckoo land when the only person defending Kate Forbes is the lesbian MSP, Joanna Cherry.
We should perhaps be thankful that her critical faculty is under-developed or she just might have said to her critics (like us!) “Well, the Pope has just said that homosexuals in Africa should be allowed civil partnerships because that would give them legal protection”! I think that’s verbatim but it’s from memory so check it out before quoting me!
I do feel sorry for her. Let’s pray for her.
PS – Petrus I actually DID laugh out loud at your Joanna Cherry crack. Hilarious!
Well said ED yes any Politician can now surely put Bergoglios Sodomite Statements up when saying that they Believe in God.
When did we ever think Years ago that a so called Pope would become a Homosexual Icon.
It is really that bad that they carry Banners of His Sayings on those Demonic Pride Things.
Where are the bishops on anything? When I was little the abortion laws were in preparation. I was on the management committee of the Laity Centre running courses, discussions and study days for Catholics in Edinburgh. I asked some ladies (Catholic Mothers Union, alas) if they did not assist young ladies with an unwanted pregnancy to avoid abortion, by assisting the girls to keep the baby or to have it adopted. I got my head in my hands. I was left in no doubt that these were bad girls and hence the babies were also likely to be bad.
A hideous misinterpretation of Original Sin.
However, as an institution the Catholic Church and its bishops have promulgated the same approach for the last 60 years. Half a million wee souls lost to God because the Bishops cannot fix up homes for unmarried mothers, or arrange adoption.
And I read a report only yesterday about a new-born baby found in the Turkey/Syrian earthquake somewhere and eventually they found her aunt and uncle, confirmed the baby was related to the aunt and they were able to adopt her.
In between times, though, the baby was in very high demand with police guarding her in case she would be kidnapped. People desperate to adopt her tried everything, lying to fool the authorities into thinking they were related and so on.
Just imagine if the babies being murdered in the womb here in the UK day in and day out, were carried to full term, born and put up for adoption. It would be incredible, I’ve no doubt about it. Lots of lovely babies given homes where they would be loved and cherished. It’s heartbreaking to think of it.
Where are the bishops on anything?
Indeed. Even my mother – a poster-woman for Vatican II “everyone is nice” Catholicism – angrily commented on the typical absence of the Bishops from this public matter.
They really are useless.
I presume they are occupied with their favourite tasks of dozing, plotting against TLM goers and posing for photos with protestant friends.
I also read a long tweet from former Moderator-ess, Lorna Hood. She claims that being against same sex “marriage” is not a mainstream Christian view because the Church of Scotland now permits them. I quickly told her (if I am permitted to split the infinitive) that the Church of Scotland had stopped representing mainstream Christianity about 500 years ago!
I also saw that and laughed aloud at Lorna Hoods idea that the Church of Scotland is anything to do with mainstream Christianity.
How could anyone confuse a dwindling and rudderless social club for pensioners for “mainstream Christianity” I do not know.
And I do not know by which Criteria she claims the CofS is the “biggest Church in Scotland”? Given, by any criteria which matters, it has not been so for quite some time.
If the Scottish bishops are anything like the American bishops, then they are quite busy attending committee meetings, task force meetings, ecumenical dog-and-pony shows, and shuffling the latest paperwork, including the paperwork for the latest rigged Synod, the Synod on Synodality.
Problem in their diocese? Let’s convene a committee to discuss! Orders from Rome to sack a traditional priest? Well that’s different – a great way to make it look like they’re actually doing something….Jawohl herr Kommandant!…and appease the Dictator Pope into the bargain.
I think I read somewhere, years ago, that one of the least-discussed effects of Vatican II was to turn the bishops into bureaucrats, and the control of their dioceses over to committees.
Apart from being turned into bureaucrats, I wonder about something else. I’d like your opinion on this, but I hope I’m not going to shock you too much when I say I wonder if anyone else thinks the clergy are increasingly effeminate, not like real men. I don’t just mean in their mannerisms or the way they speak (some Scots can sound effeminate because they don’t speak like Rab C Nesbitt, LOL!) but I mean the way they take offence.
For example, the Archbishop of Glasgow suspended Fr Dunn for criticising him (and the Pope). I hate to do down my own sex, but that sort of taking offence is more like what us women do, than men. I always think of men as being strong-minded, and they would dismiss that sort of thing. What do you think? I don’t mean to suggest anything, except that maybe all the talk in seminary about being gentle and compassionate etc has made them effeminate?
I hope I’ve not broken some woke law, now, LOL!
Victor your comment on the useless Bishops reminds me of the Comedy Sketch where when The Judian Peoples Front were actually going to do something . They then all said ” Lets not act Harshly let’s First have a Meeting ”
It seems that all over the Western World all Bishops do is have Meetings. Except on Ash Wednesday of course where they give up their Lavish Meals for a Day .
I think. Most of them are called Fat Cats and rightly so.
The only statements the bishops seem to be releasing these days are statements of suspension for Traditional priests and suppression of the TLM. Otherwise, they’re anonymous!
I think Kate Forbes has done well against the inevitable onslaught towards Christian morality. She has been straight forward that:
– she would not have supported “gay marriage”
– she would not pursue implementing the GR act in court
– she considers sex and children for marriage
Its absurd she is being asked these questions at all, of course.
Her responses have not been perfect: she has erred by using the erroneous term “equal marriage” for example. But I have admired her willinging to answer plainly and confidently, unlike the coward Tim Farron.
From media / posts I have seen, she seems to have won sympathy for her honesty and for the obvious bias directed against her. However, I do not think that, say, a West of Scotland Catholic man would be getting the same sympathy as this bonnie calvinist lassie from inverness (Scotland being Scotland). Still, beggars cant be choosers.
I do have some concerns as regards her principle. How could any kind of Christian accept a prominent role within the Sturgeon regime, for example, considering the evils that malign adminstration advanced and tried to advance? Not much good just to say “I didnt agree with it personally”. Bit like saying, “OK, I was high up in the Third Reich, but I didn’t agree with gassing the Jews”. Hollow.
In contrast Humza Yousef has shown himself to be the duplicitious snake which informed people recognise him as. While attacking Forbes for her values, it turns out that he specifically arranged a meeting at the same time as the “gay marriage” vote, to give him a convenient excuse not to vote either way. Thus being able to keep everyone happy, as it were. He has shown himself to have no principles, as we already knew.
Ash Regan has some principle, resigning from the Government rather than voting for the transvestites law. However, her error (one we known of) is to think she can pick and choose from the box of LGBT maladies – eg support “gay marriage” but reject transvestites parading around as women. But thats not how that pandoras box works, once opened, you expose society to the full malign effects as we can now see.
I could see any candidate winning. I think the two women will attract similar sorts of people and so perhaps split their vote which could benefit Yousaf.
Yousaf of couse is supported by the poisonous and opaque SNP establisment and its bought-and-paid-for coterie of identity-politics henchmen. They wont leave the trough of public money willingly and so will back the continuity candidate to the hilt.
As a Scot who has to live under the regime, I would choose Forbes.
As a Unionist, I would choose Yousaf (who is unpopular and has been starkly incompetent in every role). I am willing to endure short term pain for the comedic value he would bring and to ultimately safeguard the Union.
Any outcome (Forbes or Regan) which breaks the coalition with the odious, perverted, deranged Green party, would be very welcome.
Christians in politics should be bold and unapologetic. There is nothing wrong with having your faith influence your outlook. Look at Patrick Harvie MSP – his entire political career has been based on his disordered sexuality. Why then should Kate Forbes not look to traditional and wholesome Christian values?
Yousaf is “a duplicitous snake” – you got that right. In the interview I have just posted below, he talks about keeping his Muslim beliefs separate from his politics and wouldn’t impose them, then he adds “to be fair, Kate says the opposite!” Kate was saying the same thing – that was the problem!
So, I agree, in fact had him down as a snake myself a long time ago.
Well, that didn’t last long – looks like she’s handing in her dinner pail, to quote PG Wodehouse 😀
I think we all know by now that politics all around the world is controlled by Lucifer and is setup in such a way as to eradicate Christianity from the face of the earth. I wouldn’t waste 5 minutes listening to politicians now, they’re largely sold out and beyond changing. Only Our Lord can now sort this world, such is the mess as cultural Marxism turns the globe red. There will be no real change from a human point of view, it will come with the chastisement spoken of by Our Lady on a world turned away from its Creator.
I know you are right – at this stage, only God can put things right which is why we need to keep praying for the Consecration of Russia. IMHO, it’s only when that comes that the worst of the chastisement will be avoided or ended. We are already suffering it, through the awful scandals in the Church and the disoriented state of the world.
I agree completely with both your remarks.
The diabolical and the demonic are driving all of evil and filth throughout the church and the world.
It now requires the supernatural beauty and response from Heaven to once and for all eradicate this all consuming sulphur from the depths of Hell.
This is an interview with Humza Yousaf – see the difference.
That was a very soft interview. He’d be terrible as First Minister. God help us all.
I’m replying here to your question about effeminacy. First, taking offense is indeed a sign of homosexuality: homosexuals have a notoriously thin skin when it comes to being criticized or even corrected. They are very emotionally unstable and thus it takes very little to rock their boat.
However, there is more to it. Here is an article on how St. Thomas defines it:
Thanks for that link, it was most enlightening.
Has anyone asked this Muslim about his opinion of gay “marriage”? (Better known as “sodomitical unions”.)
Yes, because he absented himself from the vote, back in the day, and so he was asked about that, gently, no pressure, just curious you know.
Here’s the evidence that he is a snake – and I’m sorry Lord, this being the start of Lent I am resolved to do better – I promise… right after this comment 😀
When he answered the question about his beliefs on the same sex marriage question, he said that he held the Islamic view (it’s wrong although he didn’t say that) but that although that was his personal position, he would not let his own views affect his governance, and – he added – that is different from Kate… DUH! Kate said exactly the same thing. He is beneath contempt – I’ve seen him in action before in televised discussions. I would not trust him to tell me the way to Sauchiehall Street if I met him in Buchanan Street (which is right round the corner 😀 )
Thank you for this wonderful article from St Thomas. Your remarks are excellent and succinctly expressed as always.
The emotional and thin skinned observation you made is very true. I concur.
In addition, I see all of this effeminacy as an insidious tactic at the same time, because it helps to establish a climate and culture where Truth, honesty and true openness of moral and theological expression are hampered, hindered and even restricted under this Marxist, Woke Orwellian double speak to create a climate of fear, public ridicule and even social excommunication.
How long must we endure this diabolical insidious madness.
I concluded some years ago that in order to have anarchy (the intermediate goal of the Luciferians) at the social level , you have to establish a certain psychology at the individual level. That individual psychology is narcissism, which also happens to be a prominent factor in homosexuality.
But your post above causes me to wonder whether the across-the-board devastation planned by the Great Reset crowd will actually work counter to their diabolical aims. In other words, human creatures tend to respond heroically to emergency situations, rather than effeminately. And if there’s one thing required for a counter-revolution, it’s heroism.
Or perhaps I’m being a naïve optimist…regardless, may we all have a heroic Lent….
Forbes must have known that there was no chance of Her being Nominated . Therefore when at that Interview being asked about GAY Marriage it was Her chance to say all Marriages should be a Gay Day and try and get the interviewer to say that He meant Homosexual Marriage. This toning down of the Perverts Language is always we know the first step to perdition. Of course He could have tried to get Her to say Homosexual Marriage and then She would be phobic.It doesn’t matter to the LGBTQ2WXYZ mob anyhow as She is now Phobic.
This arrived from a Glasgow reader in my inbox earlier – I had meant to publish the news when I first heard it recently, but, better late than never…
*SAME-SEX MARRIAGE – JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN STRASBOURG – FRANCE* Unanimously, the World Court of Human Rights has established, verbatim, that there is no right to same-sex marriage”. The 47 judges from the 47 countries of the Council of Europe, which are members of the Plenary Court of Strasbourg (the most important human rights court in the world), published a statement of great relevance which has been surprisingly silenced by the progress of information and its field of influence. In fact, all 47 justices unanimously endorsed the ruling that “there is no right to same-sex marriage. The sentence was based on a myriad of philosophical and anthropological considerations based on the natural order, common sense, scientific reports and, of course, positive law. In the latter case, in particular, the judgment was based on Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This also equates to treaty resolutions relating to human rights, in particular articles 17 of the P San José Act and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In these historic resolutions, the Court decided that the notion of family contemplates not only “the traditional concept of marriage, that is, the union of a man and a woman”, but also that they should not be imposed on governments an “obligation to open marriage to persons of the same sex”. With regard to the principle of non-discrimination, the Court also added that there is no discrimination, since “states are free to reserve marriage only to heterosexual couples”. **** It is important and absolutely necessary to spread this kind of news because governments and supporters of homosexual lobbies do not want people to know about it. Help spread this decision! Obviously, the media is not interested in publicizing this information:
Please Spread ☝🏾we have a right to speak out and teach the dangers to our generation and not be deemed homophobic. Ends.
Kate Forbes should use this judgment next time she’s quizzed on the topic of same-sex “marriage”.