It was just over a year ago that a rare political furor erupted in Scotland, a country whose politics are rather bipartisan and straightforward. In one camp are the nationalists, who support Scotland’s separation from the United Kingdom and re-establishment as an independent state. The other camp consists of the unionists, who oppose this. When one of the camps has internal difficulties, the other side will predictably use it as an opportunity to score cheap political points. But the sudden resignation of the first minister and the ensuing leadership contest in the centre-left Scottish National Party (SNP) changed this. The young finance secretary, Kate Forbes, stood for the position against the controversial health secretary Humza Yousaf and the gender-critical feminist Ash Regan.
Forbes announced her campaign two days after Yousaf and Regan did, returning from maternity leave after the birth of her child. She had established an image as a sensible, fresh face for the party. She was a young mother and a Gaelic speaker from the Highlands. But a coordinated attack was launched on her before she had even unveiled her intention to stand.
She was a fundamentalist. A bigot. A homophobe. A representative of the ‘far-right.’ Some even said that she was backed by the American right-wing. It is certainly true that Forbes is on the Right of the Scottish National Party, but the SNP is a centre-left party, so this ‘Right’ is no more right-wing than Tony Blair was. Nevertheless, it is important to ask why she was labelled these things? The answer is simple: she is a Christian, and quite uniquely in British politics, she is a Christian who is not ashamed of her religion, her beliefs, or her identity.
Forbes is a member of the Free Church of Scotland, or the Wee Frees. They are conservative Presbyterians, and as such she upholds their moral beliefs. She believes that extramarital sex is wrong, that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and that abortion is wrong. In other words, her moral beliefs line up with those of Christianity. They are rooted in Scripture, early Christian writings like the Didache and those of the Fathers, and by the progenitors of the Reformed tradition. Crucially, Forbes never made it a point to campaign on these issues. She only expressed her personal moral beliefs when she was asked about them by a journalist. Indeed, she even made a point to say that she would not legislate them into society at large.
And yet this was not enough for the people who preach tolerance and pluralism. A latent totalitarianism has always underpinned progressive liberalism. It has become all too tiring to point it out, but the progressive liberal response when confronted with dissenting worldviews tends not to resemble those of an enlightened, open-minded individual who values a diverse ‘marketplace of ideas.’ Rather, they resemble those of Carl Schmitt and his friend-enemy understanding of the political. To Schmitt, the political is the battleground between “friend” and “enemy.” One’s political enemy does not need to be wrong, a bad person, or even a competitor. The enemy just has to be a “stranger” and from there the enemy is treated as if they were evil.
Forbes made the choice to dissent from progressive orthodoxy. She did not challenge it, but merely dissented from it and went so far as to say that she would not challenge it. And yet this was not enough to satiate the bloodlust of her political enemies. This demand for submission is not new to progressive liberalism. The French revolutionaries demanded loyalty from the Church and violently persecuted those who did not pledge it, even if they did not actively resist. The liberal theorist Karl Popper, himself a critic of totalitarianism, argued that “unlimited tolerance” would only benefit the intolerant, and that any true proponent of tolerance should be intolerant towards those who are intolerant. It is a reasonable belief that promotes self-preservation, and I would be happy to assume that there is empirical evidence backing the assertion. But it is not so much a paradox as it is window-dressing for the true nature of progressive liberalism.
This is an ideological tradition that, like any other, has a set of moral beliefs that it wishes to promote. In terms of positive commitment to some substantive ideal, there is no difference between the Christian conservative politician who wishes to legislate against homosexual rights and the progressive liberal who wishes to legislate for them. An argument can be had over whether their legislation is good or true, but there is no fundamental difference in the form of their act. Both are legislating their moral beliefs and yet many progressive liberals pretend otherwise, that their legislation somehow transcends morality.
When condemning progressive liberalism, I write against that specific tradition and not the liberal tradition as a whole. What the progressive liberal threatens is pluralism, a principle that is necessary for the existence and preservation of a free society. Democrats of all stripes in the West pride themselves on the pluralistic nature of our democracies, where men and women of all backgrounds can contribute their ideas, no matter how beyond the pale. The Christian democratic tradition which I subscribe to, and which did so much to rebuild democracy in post-war Europe, prides itself on a commitment to pluralism. It is through pluralism that democracy can best provide governance conducive to the common good, not just to one class, one sex, one religion, or residents of one geographic area, but to the whole body politic.
And so as a Scotsman, seeing many of my countrymen descend into fury over Kate Forbes’ moral beliefs concerns me greatly. The renewed assault on her in the aftermath of Humza Yousaf’s resignation risks plunging the country, already divided by religious background, class, and politics, into more unneeded chaos. If one wishes to challenge Kate Forbes on the grounds of her ‘economic conservatism,’ go right ahead! If one wishes to express a disagreement with her over her moral beliefs, that is your right. But the notion that merely holding those moral beliefs makes her unfit for office is tantamount to saying that any practising orthodox Christian should not hold office.
For Scottish democracy to prosper going forwards, we must cling firmly to a conception of pluralism whereby any Scotsman, no matter their religion or lack thereof, can participate in our democracy and be treated as an equal. Our political discourse should focus on policy, that which has a tangible effect on the Scottish people, and not on personal opinions that will have no such effect.
