Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Epiphanies 2023: SNP leadership - Epiphanies edition

edited January 7 in Limbo
This discussion was created from comments split from: Scottish Gender Recognition Act and UK Block.
«1345

Comments

  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited February 2023
    Holy moly - it's now a political football in the SNP leadership race.

    One of the big progressive candidates expected to run decided not to (Angus Robertson) . The most jaw-dropping bigot of the GRR debate who has no chance of winning is running, by the looks of it, to get more publicity for her views and to keep the media spotlight on this (Ash Regan)

    The big candidate from the parties more fiscally right leaning faction (Kate Forbes) turns out to be anti-abortion, anti-equal marriage and hugely transphobic (not just on this bill, she was out there misgendering all trans women today) and whereas she previously kept quiet about those views, she's now doubling down on them all over the shop. She is the current finance minister having replaced her boss who resigned which meant her brief didn't cover these areas but as First Minister she would be in charge of them which is scary.

    The one progressive candidate Humza Yousaf is going to fight section 35, so there's that. He's a practising Muslim who takes a lot of stick from social media racists for his religion - he really shows up Kate Forbes' claims that she's being persecuted because she is a person of faith. So is he, but he happens not to use it to attack people who have never harmed him and to undermine their human rights.

    So all of this means the GRR bill is going to be a major issue in the leadership election.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited February 2023
    I've started this thread because Humza Yousaf's Muslim identity has come up and Kate Forbes has now gone onto say people shouldn't have children out of wedlock on top of her coming out against equal marriage and being anti-abortion and her anti-trans views.

    Her backers have been withdrawing their endorsements and fleeing.

    https://ballotbox.scot/scottish-parliament/snp-leadership-election-2023
  • This is annoying me, Forbes repeats the untruth that a cis woman cannot be charged with rape. They can, and they are, fairly infrequently, usually as part of a gang assault.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Her anti -trans statement today was so bad a formal complaint is being made to the National Secretary by the SNP's LGBT+ group.


    I also missed her views on anti LGBT+ conversion therapy for which she wants religious exemptions which will gut the bill due to be brought forward.

    The Scottish government have got that, and abortion clinic protestor/harasser buffer zones in the works, as well as the Section 35 challenege - she cant be trusted with any of it.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Louise wrote: »
    Kate Forbes has now gone onto say people shouldn't have children out of wedlock

    At better than 50% of registered births, I can see there's going to be skyrocketing demand for cutty stools the better to accommodate all the fornicators of a Sunday.
  • Looking at this brouhaha from a long way south of the border, it all seems quite appalling. One can only hope that Ms Forbes crashes and burns very quickly, and that Mr Yousaf, who seems much more sensible and credible, takes over...



  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    I can't really figure out the logic of Forbes here - I don't know Sturgeon's faith background if she has any, but Forbes is clearly surrounded by people of faith at Holyrood who clearly do not share her beliefs or at least wouldn't create policy on the basis of their private beliefs. She must be aware that plenty of Christians disagree with her as well as other religious MPs.

    I know how weirdly insular some Evangelicals are in terms of understanding how completely bonkers they sound to outsiders, especially if they work for a Christian company or for a church, but I thought Holyrood was known for being much more inclusive and diverse than Westminster?
  • The Wee Frees are well known for teaching that other denominations have abandoned the True Faith (TM). It's entirely possible that Forbes has simply filed believers who disagree with her wee sect as Reprobates/Infidels/Heretics, whatever and therefore concluded that she Stands Alone. If you've a strong stomach try reading the "wee flea" blog and get a flavour of the mouth foaming nonsense she's likely getting fed.
  • The Wee Frees are well known for teaching that other denominations have abandoned the True Faith (TM). It's entirely possible that Forbes has simply filed believers who disagree with her wee sect as Reprobates/Infidels/Heretics, whatever and therefore concluded that she Stands Alone. If you've a strong stomach try reading the "wee flea" blog and get a flavour of the mouth foaming nonsense she's likely getting fed.

    Gawd he's a charmer isn't he?
  • Could this be where the SNP disintegrates as its various factions come to the conclusion that sharing a desire for Scottish Independence isn't quite enough to keep them together as one Party?
  • Could this be where the SNP disintegrates as its various factions come to the conclusion that sharing a desire for Scottish Independence isn't quite enough to keep them together as one Party?

    Nope. Though there might be a handful more defections to Salmond's anti-trans mob.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited February 2023
    I think it might be more our current media climate - it's hard to get across the extent to which she has been puffed by the press and media both Scottish and UK who were cheerleading her candidacy before it was announced - The Times being a big one.

    Considering the reactionary wind that's been blowing in the media - that might have been enough to convince anyone that they could 'say the quiet part out loud' and the 'silent majority' would rise to them. The people who puffed her knew her views and they did it anyway. I think it's part of the way the Overton window has been shifting - first came the attacks on trans people, then attacks on Stonewall, targetting of gay men, and a constant drumbeat of attacks on progressive women.

    As I've mentioned on the other thread, I've been reeling from seeing hate campaigning I last remember seeing to such a bad extent twenty years ago during 'Keep the Clause' anti-gay campaign on the front pages of newspapers. I think these folk have scented an opportunity with the UK government now striking down progressive legislation in Scotland.

    When Scotland last faced down a big social/religious conservative push, Labour were in power in both Scottish and UK parliaments, and Labour were committed to getting rid of Section 28 in both. When the Scottish parliament pushed forward with repeal of Section 28, a massive moral panic was whipped up in the media and repeal became wildly unpopular with voters as a result but Westminster had their back. The Scottish government held fast and eventually saw them off - but not before losing a key by-election to the Conservatives. At the time, the social conservatives scented a real opportunity and became very very vocal in the media - they really thought they were going to win.

    I think in part the current attacks on trans people and the way they've been enthusiastically received in the press - who've whipped up hate and misunderstanding among voters - may have helped embolden someone to think they can say all this and win politically and that they could defy political gravity because it was all going their way now.


    By the way, Ian Blackford MP (until recently SNP leader at Westminster) is Free Kirk but not at all like her and not holding such views, so it's too reductionist to put it down to religious denomination. As we were saying in Purgatory a lot of people don't believe what their denomination/religion officially preaches - it's on her that she believes this stuff and thinks it's OK to come out with it on TV in a leadership campaign.
  • Yes, I couldn't believe the Times saying Forbes was the frontrunner. She is finished, I would think. You can see the despair on the weeflea blog. Why are you attacking Christians, blah blah. And of course, Forbes said she deeply regretted hurting anyone with her homophobia, homophobes often say that.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Ooft - there's the Daily Record sticking the knife in now.
    Kate Forbes' SNP leadership campaign is over and her candidacy has become a joke

    That's the crucial Scottish tabloid which has been driving the anti-GRR campaign with front-page scaremongering splashes - if they're abandoning her, and in these no-nonsense terms, she's way too right wing for centre left/soft right social conservatives. The last time the social attitudes survey looked at it eight years ago, 60% of Scottish RCs and 59% of the Kirk supported equal marriage, so even among most religious people those views didn't wash.

    I find this stuff too scary to breathe a sigh of relief yet (and it's bad enough that it's happened) but it's a hopeful sign.
  • It's odd really, more of a suicide note than a campaign. I guess she is very naive in political terms, as if explaining why you're against equal marriage, abortion, transgender, and sex outside marriage would be a big hit. Maybe in the 1950s.
  • Naive is a polite way of putting it.
    :unamused:

    Still, there are not a few who prate on about keeping God's Laws™ in the face of what the evil world insists on doing...
  • It's odd really, more of a suicide note than a campaign. I guess she is very naive in political terms, as if explaining why you're against equal marriage, abortion, transgender, and sex outside marriage would be a big hit. Maybe in the 1950s.

    And possibly in parts of Lewis and Harris.
  • Yeah for me that's really my confusion - opposition to unmarried people having kids is always going to piss off otherwise quite conservative people. It's not like it's only very progressive people who do that nowadays, social conservatism is increasingly not necessarily tied to religiosity.
  • jedijudyjedijudy Heaven Host
    Please excuse my confusion and treading here. I just don't understand how someone could be against unmarried people having children, yet be against abortion. Or have I read that incorrectly?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    jedijudy wrote: »
    Please excuse my confusion and treading here. I just don't understand how someone could be against unmarried people having children, yet be against abortion. Or have I read that incorrectly?

    I think the overarching issue is premarital sex, which they oppose. Pre-marital sex, as they see it, leads to bad outcomes, be it out-of-wedlock births or abortions.
  • Last night, I had the conviction that the right wing would parse criticism of Forbes as an attack on religion, or faith, or Christianity. And many pundits have followed that line, but surely its not. Its an attack on intolerance, anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-sex. Its worth noting that the Church of Scotland conducts weddings between same sex people.
  • Last night, I had the conviction that the right wing would parse criticism of Forbes as an attack on religion, or faith, or Christianity. And many pundits have followed that line, but surely its not. Its an attack on intolerance, anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-sex. Its worth noting that the Church of Scotland conducts weddings between same sex people.

    A point John Swinney, himself a loyal member of the Kirk, made strongly. The Wee Frees, of course, don't consider the Kirk to be Properly Christian.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    There have been several prominent Scottish politicians who have come out with statements along the lines of "I'm a Christian, and I believe Forbes is wrong".
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    That makes a refreshing change, I am sick and tired of Christianity being publicly represented in the political sphere only by bigots.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    An example would be the statement by Ross Greer MSP.
  • jedijudy wrote: »
    Please excuse my confusion and treading here. I just don't understand how someone could be against unmarried people having children, yet be against abortion. Or have I read that incorrectly?

    Let me introduce you to the Roman Catholic Church.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited February 2023
    Soooo - Kate Forbes had a spokesbloke attack John Swinney - apparently he's trying to stop Christian women holding high office, which is neat because it side steps the fact that here we have a Christian in high office who was party leader and candidate for First minister (currently deputy FM) - the 'having a faith' bit is not the problem.

    Secondly there's apparently been a dirty tricks religious attack on Humza Yousaf - where two purported grassroots organisation Hindu and Muslim attacked him on religious grounds- BUT it seems they turned out not to be grassroots - think astroturf - and to seemingly have highly suspicious connections to Alba (Alex Salmond's anti-trans indy zealot mob). The Scottish press rumbled them and pointed fingers at the relevant Albanites (story is behind a paywall in The Herald)

    It just happens a certain candidate (not Kate Forbes) has been seen and photographed apparently accompanied in her campaigning by Alba folk whose views (I'm sure entirely coincidentally), she happens to share. I do hope that is just an innocent coincidence.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    I don't follow Scottish politics that closely at all, so with that being said...

    Is it just me, or has the SNP gone from being The Grooviest, Most Inclusive Nationalist Movement on the planet, to being a transphobic, sectarian slapstick show, virtually overnight?
  • This has very much been the big fear for trans people in the UK and of course in Scotland more specifically (also as an aside, how are Plaid Cymru on trans issues?) since Sturgeon announced her resignation. Obviously, it can't be the job of one politician to be responsible for supporting trans rights and her reasons for stepping down are completely understandable - it's the fault of the Tories and Labour for being so willing to sacrifice trans people for the sake of votes that meant that Sturgeon ended up as the most prominent party leader willing to be an ally.

    Unfortunately in many ways Labour being unwilling to deal with the TERF problem (and while Corbyn has posted trans-supportive things, he didn't exactly seek to root the TERF problem out) is responsible for spreading the issue into more mainstream spaces. There's also an obvious elephant in the room with A Prominent Person taking them and their (publicly Labour) votes from England to Scotland...
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Something like 6/7ths of the Holyrood party voted for the Gender Recognition Reform Bill (which the party itself brought forward) , In the pipeline are bills to stop conversion therapy and to put buffer zones round abortion clinics to keep protestors away, but by a horrible set of circumstances two out of the three candidates running are from that anti-trans 1/7th, so they're massively over-represented.

    Of those two, one is quite simply an anti -trans hate candidate and the other used to have the finance brief and was on maternity leave so wasn't talking about these issues but has now opened her mouth and made it quite clear she (unlike her fellow Free Kirker, Ian Blackford) holds truly awful views and would vote for them.

    Two people who were expected to run from the much bigger progressive majority didn't run because of personal reasons and that means that 6/7ths of the party are represented by one candidate - Humza Yousaf

    There's no excuse though, because people warned the SNP repeatedly about the transphobes and religious conservatives still left in the party and nothing was done about them. They then thought they'd ride on the coat-tails of the massive media press assault on trans folk after Westminster stopped the GRR bill and be guaranteed great press coverage, so here we are. (a ray of hope is that Forbes has been so incompetent, that press adulation for her has suffered a blow)

    If the SNP had thrown the transphobes out they'd have been utterly monstered in our press for intolerance - which is likely why Keir Starmer of UK Labour has done nothing about similar transphobes in his party like Rosie Duffield and refused to help fight the Tory attack on Scottish GRR.

    But the SNP should still have done the right thing - if they'd passed GRR when it was first in the manifesto years ago, instead of trying to appease the transphobes with extra consultations, it would have passed almost uncontroversially as it was UK government policy then too, but they bottled it. And nothing appeased the transphobe faction. They don't actually have 'reasonable concerns' - the leaders of their movement hate trans people to a fanatical degree and want rid of them and will sacrifice almost anything else to do it.

    It would have been better to be wrongly monstered for intolerance than rightly accused of fostering it.

  • Great summations and anslyses, @Pomona and @Louise.

    One of the reasons I was curious is because the Parti Quebecois has undergone a decades-long decline from Hip Young Civic Nationalists to Ranting Ethnonationalists. When an SNP delegation visited Quebec a number of years back, the PQ tried unsuccessfully to swing a meeting, and some of the commentary in the anglo-canadian press was along the lines of "No kidding the cosmopolitan Scottish Nationalists don't wanna meet with a buncha xenophobic chauvinists."

    So, if the SNP were heading into its own reactionary valley-of-darkness, that would be following the same path as the PQ. Though from what I'm reading here, the sudden prominence of transphobic Scottish Nationalists might be more of an issue-specific fluke, whereas the PQ's rightward drift was related to their own traditional issues, but with a different spin than what the earlier, more progressive versions of the party had.
  • And is it the case that the SNP, relative to other parties, attracts members of religious groups that are hostile to trans rights?
  • stetson wrote: »
    And is it the case that the SNP, relative to other parties, attracts members of religious groups that are hostile to trans rights?

    I doubt it. The bigot elements of most religious groups tend to be unionists. Remember the Orange Order still has strength in the west of Scotland.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    stetson wrote: »
    And is it the case that the SNP, relative to other parties, attracts members of religious groups that are hostile to trans rights?

    I doubt it. The bigot elements of most religious groups tend to be unionists. Remember the Orange Order still has strength in the west of Scotland.

    So, the anti-trans contingent of the SNP is no larger than in other parties, but circumstance has just made them a little more influential at this time. Is what I would glean from the comments here.
  • As Louise said a while ago, it reminds me of the clause 28 conniptions in 2000, (the attempt to keep the anti-gay measure in Scotland), although I don't remember SNP members working for Keep the Clause.
  • stetson wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    And is it the case that the SNP, relative to other parties, attracts members of religious groups that are hostile to trans rights?

    I doubt it. The bigot elements of most religious groups tend to be unionists. Remember the Orange Order still has strength in the west of Scotland.

    So, the anti-trans contingent of the SNP is no larger than in other parties, but circumstance has just made them a little more influential at this time. Is what I would glean from the comments here.

    If anything the anti-trans group in the SNP is smaller than in other parties (Alba took in many of the reactionary pro-indy members) - Labour is equivocal about trans rights and the tories actively court transphobes.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    stetson wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    And is it the case that the SNP, relative to other parties, attracts members of religious groups that are hostile to trans rights?

    I doubt it. The bigot elements of most religious groups tend to be unionists. Remember the Orange Order still has strength in the west of Scotland.

    So, the anti-trans contingent of the SNP is no larger than in other parties, but circumstance has just made them a little more influential at this time. Is what I would glean from the comments here.

    If anything the anti-trans group in the SNP is smaller than in other parties (Alba took in many of the reactionary pro-indy members) - Labour is equivocal about trans rights and the tories actively court transphobes.

    Right. I think the Alba connection is one of the reasons I might have viewed the SNP as having a stronger-than-average reactionary contingent. Though, of course, you can't blame a party for what its schismatics do after forming their own group.

    (It is a bit of a stretch to portray Alex Salmond, of Russia Today fame, as being a fringe character within the context of the SNP, but I do recognize that a party-leader can have views that aren't shared by most members.)
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    stetson wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    And is it the case that the SNP, relative to other parties, attracts members of religious groups that are hostile to trans rights?

    I doubt it. The bigot elements of most religious groups tend to be unionists. Remember the Orange Order still has strength in the west of Scotland.

    So, the anti-trans contingent of the SNP is no larger than in other parties, but circumstance has just made them a little more influential at this time. Is what I would glean from the comments here.

    If anything the anti-trans group in the SNP is smaller than in other parties (Alba took in many of the reactionary pro-indy members) - Labour is equivocal about trans rights and the tories actively court transphobes.

    Though to be fair, the Tories do have one openly trans mp.
  • stetson wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    And is it the case that the SNP, relative to other parties, attracts members of religious groups that are hostile to trans rights?

    I doubt it. The bigot elements of most religious groups tend to be unionists. Remember the Orange Order still has strength in the west of Scotland.

    So, the anti-trans contingent of the SNP is no larger than in other parties, but circumstance has just made them a little more influential at this time. Is what I would glean from the comments here.

    If anything the anti-trans group in the SNP is smaller than in other parties (Alba took in many of the reactionary pro-indy members) - Labour is equivocal about trans rights and the tories actively court transphobes.

    Right. I think the Alba connection is one of the reasons I might have viewed the SNP as having a stronger-than-average reactionary contingent. Though, of course, you can't blame a party for what its schismatics do after forming their own group.

    I think that the fact that they consist of multiple factions united mainly by independence creates one pole, on the other hand that one of their strongest arguments for independence for the longest time has been a Tory government that Scotland never voted for creates another pole. Lastly, a lot of the reactionaries already departed when Alba was formed.
  • stetson wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    And is it the case that the SNP, relative to other parties, attracts members of religious groups that are hostile to trans rights?

    I doubt it. The bigot elements of most religious groups tend to be unionists. Remember the Orange Order still has strength in the west of Scotland.

    So, the anti-trans contingent of the SNP is no larger than in other parties, but circumstance has just made them a little more influential at this time. Is what I would glean from the comments here.

    If anything the anti-trans group in the SNP is smaller than in other parties (Alba took in many of the reactionary pro-indy members) - Labour is equivocal about trans rights and the tories actively court transphobes.

    Right. I think the Alba connection is one of the reasons I might have viewed the SNP as having a stronger-than-average reactionary contingent. Though, of course, you can't blame a party for what its schismatics do after forming their own group.

    (It is a bit of a stretch to portray Alex Salmond, of Russia Today fame, as being a fringe character within the context of the SNP, but I do recognize that a party-leader can have views that aren't shared by most members.)

    With Salmond it's not all clear whether he's actually a transphobe or merely plays one on TV (not that one is better than the other, but it wasn't apparent while he was leader and FM that he had those tendencies).
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited February 2023
    I would really pay good money to read a proper investigative journalism piece on how and when Salmond was radicalised. He gave a one-liner in a magazine interview suggesting a positive view of Putin in 2014 which seemed out of character but in 2017 took up hosting his Russia Today show to everyone's horror.

    He's a late addition to Scottish transphobia though, the original promoter of that in nationalist circles was a certain very litigious blogger who shot to prominence ca. 2013 from critiquing talking points in the anti-independence press but who then turned out to be into all kinds of alarming prejudice.

    Salmond didn't take up his virulent transphobia until after being acquitted of harassing women and leaving to form Alba.

    A very cynical person might say that transphobia can be a cheap and nasty way of laundering a bad reputation on feminism by posing as a 'defender of women'. Salmond isn't the only one - one of the leadership hopefuls is hanging out with someone very similar.
  • stetson wrote: »
    And is it the case that the SNP, relative to other parties, attracts members of religious groups that are hostile to trans rights?

    No. Generally transphobia in UK politics is not religious in nature (and indeed has much bigger links to the 90s sceptic movement and New Atheism). None of the most prominent transphobic MPs/MSPs are more than nominally religious iirc.

    I'm not sure you can really call UK Labour equivocal on trans rights when Starmer is talking about having trans kids outed to their parents.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    Louise wrote: »
    I would really pay good money to read a proper investigative journalism piece on how and when Salmond was radicalised. He gave a one-liner in a magazine interview suggesting a positive view of Putin in 2014 which seemed out of character but in 2017 took up hosting his Russia Today show to everyone's horror.

    He's a late addition to Scottish transphobia though, the original promoter of that in nationalist circles was a certain very litigious blogger who shot to prominence ca. 2013 from critiquing talking points in the anti-independence press but who then turned out to be into all kinds of alarming prejudice.

    Salmond didn't take up his virulent transphobia until after being acquitted of harassing women and leaving to form Alba.

    A very cynical person might say that transphobia can be a cheap and nasty way of laundering a bad reputation on feminism by posing as a 'defender of women'. Salmond isn't the only one - one of the leadership hopefuls is hanging out with someone very similar.

    There is quite a lot of evidence that a [content removed] transphobe got radicalised after hitting on and being rejected by trans women, so I wonder if that's also a factor. Very Blanchardian.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    @Pomona I have removed content as it might expose the ship to legal risk. (I will check whether change was sufficient to remove risk, if not more will need to be removed.)

    Gwai,
    Epiphanies Host
  • @Pomona
    Generally transphobia in UK politics is not religious in nature (and indeed has much bigger links to the 90s sceptic movement and New Atheism).

    Yeah, those New Atheists have a pretty checkered record on a number of issues. As was pointed out at the time, it often seemed that the only thing "new" about them was that, unlike Voltaire and Mencken, they seemed most obsessed with attacking the forms of god-belief embraced by marginalized immigrant groups.
  • I have no dog in this fight, but is the trans issue the only one thse days that can incur the charge of bigotry?
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Given the response to comments about marriage equality and women's rights that Forbes has made over the last few days, in addition to trans rights, there seems to be plenty of options to point out bigotry across a range of issues.
  • Given the response to comments about marriage equality and women's rights that Forbes has made over the last few days, in addition to trans rights, there seems to be plenty of options to point out bigotry across a range of issues.

    And there's been a meaty chunk of racist and/or Islamophobic bigotry directed towards Yousaf (though not, in this case, from Kate Forbes).
  • Given the response to comments about marriage equality and women's rights that Forbes has made over the last few days, in addition to trans rights, there seems to be plenty of options to point out bigotry across a range of issues.

    And there's been a meaty chunk of racist and/or Islamophobic bigotry directed towards Yousaf (though not, in this case, from Kate Forbes).

    Yes, mostly along the lines that he's actually secretly homophobic and against gay marriage.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited February 2023
    This came out today on Kate Forbes whose campaign manager has suddenly quit.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/kate-forbes-snp-christian-action-research-education-care-anti-abortion-dark-money/

    She got into politics from being an intern for the lobby group CARE (Christian Action, Research and Education)
    The organisation has an income of almost £2m a year but doesn’t disclose where it gets this money from.

    Since being elected to Holyrood in 2016, Forbes has granted considerable access to Christian right lobby groups. Almost 10% of her meetings as an MSP with registered lobbyists have been with representatives of ultraconservative groups, including CARE, the Evangelical Alliance and the Christian Institute. Together, these groups have a turnover of around £8m a year. None reveal the sources of their funding.
Sign In or Register to comment.