[St Charles Owl]

I fully respect her choice of faith and she did say she would not allow her faith to rule, but her admission that she would have voted against the gay marriage bill has to be of concern and does smack of some hypocrisy in her statement. She is not an ordinary person, I couldn't care less about her faith but when she is running to be First Minister of Scotland then these small details become far more important.

I see Republicans over here talking about respecting settled law, until they find a way of disputing or changing it and for a progressive party having a leader who is openly against gay marriage has to be a warning sign to you surely?? A political party's agenda is set by the rank and file of the party, the leader is the one who has to make sure that agenda is followed, what happens when the next social issue becomes a topic or a proposed law and she then votes against it because of her faith? It took just one term of Trump to change the makeup of the US Supreme Court to the point where it doesn't matter what he thinks nor what the rank and file Republicans think, by being leader he was able to put the mechanisms in place to make sure others with lower profiles and no aspiration for office were able to change settled law. That might seem extreme by Scottish standards and I am not suggesting she is the same as him but it has all been done under the umbrella of Christian faith and by people following that faith who make decisions.

Again I will defend her right to have faith and to have views, but can you imagine a gay person from Scotland voting for a leader that is opposed to their marriage to their partner? Diversity is fine and having ones own views is fine but when the leader of a party is against the rights of others then for me it reflects badly on the party. Of course we are not all angels, we all have our beliefs but we are not the one looking to lead the Scottish Government.

As for Humza Yousaf, I would hold him to the same standards.

---

I respect you and jim having different views to mine, but in defence of my point of view, I am still convinced that she should still be allowed to contest the leadership without the condemnation. If SNP members feel she is not suitable, then they don't vote for her, as will undoubtedly happen.

She has never said she wants to govern by religious belief and I would hope that the SNP chooses policy, not her. It's a sad fact of life nowadays that personality wins over policy every time.

I am interested in your mention of "right-wing Christians". Can someone opposing some of the examples you mention not be left-wing?

Anyway, I've had my say on the Kate Forbes saga 4 times now and I feel that's enough for anyone.

Of course she is allowed to contest it, nothing should stop her from doing that, but as a person standing for election to the highest office in Scotland, those who have a say should be fully aware of where she stands on topic, as they should for all candidates.

She is reported to have said "I make my own decisions on the basis of what decision is right and wrong, according to my faith", that would worry me if she wanted to be my leader.

I mention right wing Christians because that is exactly what they are, right wing and Christian. The difference broadly between them and moderate or left wing Christians is their belief that their version of Christianity should be the only one and should be the rules by which the US is governed. They are the ones the Republicans tend to "throw red meat" type comments out there to make sure this group continues to vote for them. This is purely a US thing and does not mean it applies elsewhere.