“…what we have here is a clash of two religions. One of them is full of sanctimonious, swivel-eyed moral scolds, rooting out heresy and trying to indoctrinate everybody into their fantastic way of thinking. The other is a branch of Calvinism.” Brilliant, and worth the subscription for that alone. Thank you.

The monarch of this country carries the title of Defender of the Faith. These days I am seeing precious little defense of the faith of Christianity in our country by monarch, politicians, or even by its own clergy – most of whom seem desperate to drink the woke kool-aid.

I carry no torch for any religion, including Christianity. But there is clearly a massive imbalance here, when, in a country which used to regard itself as broadly a Christian one, Christianity is allowed to effectively wither on the vine, while other faiths are promoted by almost everybody in our self-appointed ruling classes.

Wonderful article, yet again. Thank you so much. Just one nano-quibble. You say “Where a person appears to be able to leave his personal beliefs at home — as Forbes’ rival Humza Yousaf implies he can with Islam — then arguably, he doesn’t have very strong beliefs in the first place.” In 2014, Mr. Yousaf was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and the vote on gay marriage occurred. Mr Yousaf did not vote. He had a meeting with the Pakistan Consul that could not be delayed, apparently.
Also, have you seen the details of Mr. Yousaf’s Hate Crime legislation? It is rather too close to an Islamic blasphemy law for my liking.
You do not have to take Mr Yousaf’s utterances at face value. He has learnt how to talk the talk, but he is not so good at concealing the fact that he doesn’t walk the walk.

Great peice, cheers.

What the screeching progressive commentariat don’t seem to grasp is that by denouncing Forbes for holding certain views, they are by extension doing the same to millions of the public, who, whilst being handed their deplorable badges are also able to see clearly the hoped for fate that awaits anybody who dares to voice even the slightest opposition to the new orthodoxy.

As a slight aside – this, I believe is precisely the reason why Lee Anderson was apopointed to such prominent position – its was a rare canny move from Conservative HQ; a trap designed to alienate the public from the lefty loudmouth establishment who, it was calculated, wouldn’t be able resist reacting to appointment with hysterical scorn. The Guardian, when it launched the dozen or so attacks on Anderson – complete with the predictable reems of spiteful and vitriolic comments – fell straight into the trap, leaving no bloke in the street with any doubt that he will be utterly hated if he holds even a single non-‘progressive’ opinion.

Brilliant, Kathleen. Thank you for this piece.

Are we really supposed to believe that Humza’s beliefs are not infinitely more extreme and authoritarian?

If Kate Forbes can get past the cowards and hypocrites in her party’s leadership and the media, I should think she has a good chance of getting chosen as leader. She is clearly a sincere, serious and intelligent politician and streets ahead of her rivals. Unfortunately she is a nationalist, and I’m a unionist.

While I broadly agree with Kathleen’s opinions, actually the article is very good, the one point I disagree with, and this might well be because I’m a bloke (of a certain age, if that’s relevant ( what isn’t ! Which interestingly, is what the article is all about), but the notion that women don’t occasionally get a free pass, as do some, with regard to sexuality/ race/ religion/ class, is pure bunkum. It might well be patronising paternalism (what once used to be called ‘manners’ (very much out of fashion), but they do still, if imperfectly, exist, it’s just that being a woman has dropped well down the ‘pandering’ list (more so in Scottish political minds given, evidently, that anybody, and everybody, can be one), compared to other characteristics, such as race and ‘non-native’ religions, so Humza (what a pity he isn’t also gay, although, obviously, in a non gay way, which doesn’t interfere with his religious views) can’t be asked anything ‘serious’ at all.

A candidate with strong beliefs who is willing to admit to them and isn’t likely to change them for personal gain… basically what most of us want in a leader.

Best first sentence in the history of Unherd.
Stock and Harrington are simply essential reading these days.

Another very well-argued piece by Kathleen Stock, with her usual quota of memorable phrases.

I also feel there’s a personal touch to this one: a woman being hounded by the media for specific personal views which don’t match the liberal left worldview. An interesting intervention by Kemi Badenoch too, which i hadn’t heard about, along the “freedom of conscience” lines.

Ultimately, what Scotland desperately needs right now is straightforward competence in its political leadership. If this is another example of the SNP shooting itself in the foot, it’ll deserve to see hopes of independence recede ever further from view, at least for another generation.

Always amazes me how the loudest proponents of free speech and anti-bullying are the very same people who are all for restriction of free speech and pro-bullying when someone has a different view.
The point about the ‘charities’ is well made, after all if your job is to be paid to fight homophobia you’re going to damn well make sure there’s plenty of homophobia around. Why exactly do we now have an LGBT&$%*= history month? Is this on top of pride month? does it replace it? does it replace black history month? genuine question if anyone knows

An excellent essay. I suspect that the economics of the media (and particular charities) is currently based of presenting interesting stories to its readership and these are based on ‘finding’ rough edges to pick at.
As a consequence all the interesting principled politicians end up cast aside for their ‘imperfections’ or sanded down to a smooth bland dullard.
I’ve complained before about machine politics. Well the weeding out of principled politicians is part of that process, denying the electorate any real choice.

Does any sane person really think that the UK or USA actually face a serious risk of right-wing, Christian, authoritarianism? Look around, people! Liberalism controls essentially every major cultural, media, educational, and artistic institution in the Western world.
While you liberals have been ferreting out every possible hint of serious Christianity among the ruling class, you’ve built a theocracy of secular liberalism every bit as repressive as the right-wing bogeyman you’re so afraid of. And even today, you can’t see it.

The official guidance to religious discrimination under the Equality Act includes Christianity as a religion which must also affect how a person lives their life. Kate Forbes is living as a person of great personal integrity by showing how her beliefs influence and form her life. She has clearly stated that, if FM, she would not force those beliefs onto others, so she is not supporting theocratic ambition.
If she was to be refused employment by the SNP, she would have strong grounds for a religious discrimination case. Election is a different from employment but the principle is the same. None of those shouting at her for being a Christian are criticising Rishi Sunak for being Hindu, or Yussaf for being Muslim. Clearly Christians are fair game for discrimination. But the hippocracy of those who trumpet equality being the leading proponents of discrimination is nothing but blind arrogance.

Very, very good article, but copybook blotted in the last couple of paragraphs. ‘Of course, in practice, no-one criticising her has any idea whether Forbes is a genuine homophobe or not.’ Even the author, then, assumes there is an objective standard for being a ‘genuine homophobe’ and a set of criteria to pass or fail the test. Trouble is, everyone has a different set of standards and ‘homophobe’ is always a slur. Similarly for Christians who are ‘bigoted nutcases’.

Good article – but why does the author give credence to the term “gender critical”. It is easily used as a slur by her opponents, so how about using “biologically affirming” instead ….

The normal English description of a Scotch Presbyterian is:

‘Someone who has a very uncomfortable feeling that somebody, somewhere is really enjoying themselves’.

I spent many years leading our local gender identity service. Although our service was a small one, we probably assessed nearly all of the transgender people in our locality who were seeking gender re-assignment.

In my experience, it was very unusual for hostility and ostracism to be directed at trans-gender people. This sometimes arose for understandable reasons e.g. from a spouse who had gone into marriage without knowing that his/her partner was transgender.  

I was much more struck by the acceptance and tolerance shown to most of my patients. The reactions of friends, employers and work colleagues generally ranged from positive help and support to polite indifference. (Perhaps polite indifference is the reaction most feared by trans ‘activists’?) 

My patients were mainly reasonable people trying to cope with a tragic predicament. They were not strident or confrontational. They did not see ‘trans’ as an identity. They generally wished to move to their preferred gender, fade into the background and get on with their lives.

Very witty last paragraph. Kathleen Stock has turned from a philosophy academic into a superb journalist (which is a hugely impressive writing-style pivot).

I agree with Stock that gays do not face much persecution in the UK today… but it is possible that their persecution fantasies are nonetheless not imaginary. The explanation is that the voices they hear, telling them they are doing wrong – are coming from within, not without.
When the gay rights movement first achieved prominence in the public sphere in the 1980’s, the narrative was “what happens in the bedroom is private.” And yet, once that had been achieved, they pushed further and demanded not just “tolerance” but affirmation from all of society. They wanted not just to be left alone, but to be universally applauded. Why?
The answer is simple. The shame and guilt they thought were caused by “being in the closet” echoed just as loudly in their ears when they were alone in the bedroom – because it’s coming from within. And to drown it out, they must trumpet their normalcy in Pride Marches… plaster their banner on every corporate logo… assert drastic over-representation in movies, films and books… monitor every public word for any hint of disapproval… even recast historical figures as hidden gay heroes of the past. All trying to shout down the still, small voice within.

A great column, but there’s an important principle lurking just below it. The UK drew the teeth of organised religion, mainly the C of E, over recent generations, by subjecting it to hard questioning and criticism. Under such scrutiny, it was forced to lose much of its dogmatism, and morph into a do-gooder organisation, paying lip service to its god and his texts. This way, it lost its grip of fear, but held on to deference. But we came to think of the CofE being religion, and religion being the CofE. Under that misapprehension, we have deferred to ‘religion’, all religions, as basically well meaning and more or less harmless, despite the fact that many of them are as dogmatic, repressive, and backward as Christianity was centuries ago. Far from subjecting these alien religions to the sorts of examination which neutered our home-grown ones, we have actually given them ‘protected’ status, and give them money to impose their beliefs on children in ‘faith’ schools. Religion not only fosters division and conflict, it cements it in place. It’s a recipe for the Balkanisation of the UK.

“Christians range from kind, tolerant, and generous people to bigoted nutcases”
The innuendo there being that ‘kind, tolerant, and generous’ are *always* better than ‘bigoted’. But I’m a proud bigot in preference to being kind, tolerant and generous to the pedophiles who are now about to step out of the closet. We need more Bigots.

With Sunak in London and Hamza in Edinburgh we may well achieve what Robert Burns described as “Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation“.