SO, Alex Neil has gone on record saying that the reason why Mr Yousaf missed the final vote on equal marriage might not be the same as the “official” reason.
A lot of people are crying foul about this intervention. However, to them I want to ask this question: how is this behaviour any different from the briefings from “SNP staffers” and the veiled threats from the Scottish Green against Ms Forbes?
Speaking personally, I agree with the views expressed by Jeane Freeman at the weekend. It should serve as a wake-up call and what should be being asked is – who is the best person to advance the cause of independence and take the fight to the Unionists?
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf 'skipped' equal marriage vote, says former SNP minister
In my mind, that is Ms Forbes. She is hard-working, intelligent and has made one very good point that isn’t being discussed. Namely, the reason why so many people were willing to at least listen to the Yes campaign in 2014 was that the SNP were providing a stable and effective government which got the bread-and-butter issues right and gave an insight into how an independent Scotland might function.
With all due respect to Mr Yousaf, I do think that the health brief could have been handled better. True, the threat of strikes has been avoided and the state of NHS buildings is better than in England. It is also true that the NHS has faced a huge crisis, but First Ministers have to deal with crises, run the government well and advance independence. Given this evidence, I don’t think Mr Yousaf has what it takes to do the job.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf: Mudslinging in SNP leadership contest is 'frustrating'
All that aside, I have supported independence and the SNP since I was 14, and next month I will be 48. My great grandfather worked at Covilles (Dalzell), my grandfather at Ravenscraig and my uncle at Clydesdale. I also have an aunt who farms in Fife, close to Rosyth. I know all about the “benefits of the Union”. So whoever wins, I will fall in behind them, support them and won’t be resigning from the party in a huff. I care too much about the wellbeing and livelihoods of my fellow Scots to do that.
Andrew Haddow
Glasgow
LEAVING aside all other aspects of Kate Forbes’s leadership bid, I really do despair when I read her stated vision of Scotland as the “envy of the world, again”. For any prospective leader of the SNP and therefore of the Yes movement to witter on about any utopian, pie-in-the-sky vision beyond a) getting us out of the Union ASAP and b) embarking upon the long, hard task of making present-day Scotland a better place than it currently is, is arrant nonsense.
Ian Duff
Inverness
IT is a sad reflection of the objective and professional standards prevalent in the UK mainstream media today that even our supposed impartial public broadcaster’s reporting of the SNP leadership contest has focused its attention on religious beliefs and essentially matters of conscience instead of visions of the future and associated economic and other pertinent policies.
During the Conservative leadership debates, little attention was paid to views on gender recognition reform in spite of the fact that the recommendations of the recent Tory-led Women and Equalities Committee, which were “broadly in line” with the bill passed by the Scottish Parliament, were apparently being ignored. My recollections of those debates did not include forensic scrutiny of the views of the candidates on this issue or on how they might have voted nearly 20 years ago if they had been in the UK Parliament when the 2004 Gender Recognition Act was passed.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf: I'm only candidate who can ensure SNP-Green deal continues
While Kate Forbes is young and relatively inexperienced in responding to media interviewers intent (sometimes distastefully if not scurrilously) on exploiting her frankness, most of the general public, including SNP members, are probably more interested in her vision for the future and how she will progress self-determination in order to make Scotland a better country in which to live for all of its citizens.
Certainly, despite some highly aggressive questioning, she should still have managed to express her sympathetic understanding of concerns of the LGBT community but as long as she will sincerely fight to protect, and where possible advance, the rights of all minorities she should not be summarily rejected as a leadership candidate who, should she become First Minister, will have around her strong advocates of those rights (regardless of whether or not the SNP remains in coalition with the Greens).
Compared to a choice between Johnson, Truss and Sunak it would seem that the SNP is fortunate to have three honest, competent and personable leadership candidates, none of whom, to my knowledge, have repeatedly been fined for breaking the law.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
AM I the only one not overly enthused with the choice of the final three candidates?
I was looking forward to having to choose between the likes of Angus Robertson and Shona Robison, who I was very surprised was never mentioned. This surprised me as she seems as articulate as Nicola Sturgeon and always seemed on top of her brief.
I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but I’m not so sure that any of these candidates will be SNP leader for long.
Steve Cunningham
Aberdeen
READ MORE: Ash Regan: International community will respect Scottish self-determination
I AM by no means a supporter of Ash Reagan. I have, however, noticed some adverse comment anent her choice of schooling for her children. Where or how any parent chooses to educate her child within the law is a family matter. This is not a matter for some impudent outsider. It is the duty of a parent to do what they believe is best for their child. Any person failing to do so on grounds of political dogma is a bad parent.
R Mill Irving
Gifford, East Lothian
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel