Kate Forbes is a terrifying prospect for Unionists

If you believe in the United Kingdom, it’s hard not to revel in the bitter infighting occasioned by the contest to replace Nicola Sturgeon. Senior SNP ministers are monstering one another on TV, trashing their government’s record and talking about sacking their rivals if they win. After 16 years of iron discipline, which helped them steamroller through election after election, it’s all gone horribly wrong. And by ‘horribly’, I mean ‘gloriously’. But Unionists are in danger of becoming complacent. 

On its face, the Sky News poll that accompanied Monday night’s SNP leadership debate was encouraging for supporters of the United Kingdom. Eight years after 45 per cent of Scots voted to break away, support for Scexit is down to 39 per cent. A majority say Scotland will still be part of the UK in a decade’s time. Sturgeon is off. Nats are at each others’ throats. Punters have gone iffy on independence. Drams all round and ‘Rule Britannia’ on the pipes, please. 

Not quite. For one, that same poll shows that, even as the SNP tears itself apart in prime-time, the public are still behind it. The Nationalists enjoy a ten-point lead over Labour in Westminster voting intention and 17 points when it comes to Holyrood. For another, the poll confirms what we already knew about age and independence: if only under-50s had a vote, Scotland would be independent yesterday. Westminster has no plan, no strategy, no clue for how to address this demographic time bomb. 

But there is another reason why pro-UK forces cannot rest on their laurels and her name is Kate Forbes. Last night’s debate underlined the Forbes threat neatly. Humza Yousaf planted his flag deep in Sturgeon territory: social progressivism and constitutional gradualism. Ash Regan continued to appeal to the sort of SNP members who already left to join Alex Salmond’s Alba party: fundamentalists and other mentalists. Forbes continued to pitch herself not only to party members but to the general public. The latter don’t have a vote in this contest; it would be wiser to pander to the rank and file instead. But she doesn’t. She keeps confronting them with hard truths about the party’s failings in government and the hurdles to achieving independence. 

This candour may prove her undoing. Yousaf is still the man to beat and it’s difficult to see how she beats him by telling Nationalists to sit up straight, eat their greens and play nice with No voters. What if she does, though? What if, somehow, she triumphs over the party hierarchy and its handpicked candidate, over a hostile media and its attacks on her religion, over the progressive presbyterium and their woke catechism? What then?

Then, we face the prospect of an SNP leader who is fiscally moderate, unwedded to fringe identity politics, and eager to coax Unionists into the nationalist fold. An SNP leader who talks the language of Labourism on fighting poverty and fixing the NHS and the language of Toryism on economic growth and freedom of speech. An SNP leader who prioritises competent governance over constitutional grievance because she calculates the former will do more than the latter to win converts to independence. An SNP leader who speaks like this:

‘Continuity won’t cut it. If elected First Minister, I want to reach across the divide and persuade No voters to vote Yes in a future referendum. I want to put economic growth front and centre, not just as part of how we govern now to tackle the cost-of-living crisis and reinvest in our public services but also to make the economic case for independence.’

That wasn’t the only moment from last night that should trouble supporters of the UK. Asked if independence was her priority, Forbes replied:

‘The people’s priorities right now are cost-of-living and our public services.’

Asked how she would win a referendum, she said:

‘Govern well, earn trust and persuade people to vote for independence.’

Time and again she returned the question to how No voters felt, to what they wanted, to listening and convincing them. There is an uncommon graciousness and generosity of spirit at work in this woman. She is a nationalist ideologue, utterly committed to breaking up the UK, but she’s so achingly, infuriatingly reasonable about it. 

Whether that will pay off with SNP members, it already has with voters. Go back to that poll. By clear margins, Labour and Lib Dem voters believe she would make a better First Minister than either of her rivals. Among Tory voters, she enjoys the same level of support as she does among SNP supporters. One third of Labour, four in ten Tories and almost half of Lib Dems rate her as competent. 

She has net positive ratings on ‘strong leader’, ‘competent’ and ‘trustworthy’ among voters in the north east, the south of Scotland and those over 65, three demographics where the SNP struggles. She is the only candidate who gets a clean sweep on these questions across the constitutional divides: Yes, No, Leave and Remain voters all give her net positive scores. Only a fifth of voters view her main rival, Yousaf, as a strong, competent or trustworthy leader. Voters in the north east think he’s untrustworthy by a margin of 31 points, over 65s by 33 points, and women by 14 points. 

Hence why Tories, and many in Labour, want it to be Yousaf. An SNP leader with a centre-left heart, a centre-right head, a fresh face and an open mind is everyone’s worst nightmare. As for Westminster, it has managed to keep independence at bay because support for separation has hovered at or below 50 per cent.

But what happens if the SNP elects a leader who can break through that halfway mark and do so by bringing along voters who are traditionally Labour and even Tory? There are, as far as I can tell, no contingency plans for someone like Kate Forbes. I still think it’s going to be Yousaf. For Westminster’s sake, it had better be.