Some SNP leadership candidates’ beliefs are simply unacceptable – Michael Sturrock

“Too often I see issues presented and as a result viewed not on their own merits, but through the prism of what I think and what people think about me.” This was one of the many salient points in Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation speech.

Her prolonged presence as the figurehead of Scotland and the independence movement, she thought, was clouding political discourse. She had “always been of the belief that no one individual should be dominant in any system for too long”. While some of us, myself included, would have been perfectly content with the First Minister continuing in post for a good while yet, we can all recognise some truth in this.

I believe a similar phenomenon exists for political parties. The longer a party holds dominance in a political system, debates about issues in the public forum begin to reflect how that debate unfolds within that party. At the same time, the party becomes prone to mistaking itself for the facilitator of all debates in society, with pre-existing factions seizing upon opposing views about not only newly arising issues but long-settled ones.

Now, I’m not suggesting my party’s time in government is up. I believe the SNP and independence is the best path for Scotland. But we should take this opportunity to be clear about our party’s core values and the acceptability, or not, of candidates who do not share them.

To me, it’s worrying that our leadership race is playing host to discussions on the merits of established fundamental rights. Such discussions are perfectly legitimate to have in any liberal democratic society. But it falls far beyond what the party should be willing to entertain, even hypothetically, as up for debate.

So, what should be our baseline expectations for our party leader’s views? How should their views and, indeed, those of any elected SNP member, inform their legislating? I think it’s fair to say we all agree that, in the broad sense, we live in a fairly typical liberal democratic society with a wide plurality of views about how people should live. It is a politician’s, and particularly a First Minister’s, job to facilitate this.

However, I believe many within and outwith the party have made the mistake of believing that, as a party and society that has liberal values, we are obligated to entertain all standpoints and to permit those with illiberal views to forward their agendas and, if elected, vote in accordance with their beliefs. I believe this is wrong not only for our political party but also that it is in conflict with the interests of those whose views, religious or otherwise, diverge from widely accepted liberal principles.

The political theorist Martha Nussbaum outlines two forms of liberalism. The first she terms “perfectionist liberalism”, which is the holding of the belief that liberal values, freedom, democracy, equality, tolerance, among others, are the ‘right’ values by which we should live our lives. Some of us believe that some of us don’t, and that’s OK.

Nicola Sturgeon joins people taking part in Pride Glasgow (Picture: David Cheskin/PA)

But the second kind, “political liberalism”, describes how liberalism has a separate functional value that can exist alongside illiberal core beliefs. By virtue of holding alternative or controversial beliefs that aren’t universally shared, Nussbaum argues one requires a society that values freedom, tolerance and plurality so that one can, as far as reasonably possible, live life differently to others.

In other words, it’s reasonable in society for someone to think it’s not right to get married to a person of the same sex, have an abortion, or have a child out of wedlock, or for people to make their own judgment about their gender. But if that person is also accepting of the fact others don’t share those views, that person should value law-making that permits both parties to act differently, not vote in a way that could result in one group having to live by the other’s preferred rules.

Quite simply, if they aren’t prepared to legislate to allow the beliefs and interests of all, they cannot expect it for themselves. This goes against everyone’s interests and, on this count alone, we should be extremely hesitant to endorse a candidate who does not value political liberalism.

But there is a second layer to this, and it goes back to the problem of our party playing host to any and all societal discussions, even those about basic and established rights. We are a political party. We’re expected to take positions on issues. We can have red lines. We can reasonably say, “we will not permit someone who breaches our red lines to stand as a candidate”.

For example, someone who opposed independence would be unsuited to be our leader. But the SNP has established other positions equally important as independence. Under Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership, there is a consensus around the value of enhancing the lives of all people through progressive policies, whether through provision of social goods or expanding basic rights. Diverging from this puts us in alignment with the socially conservative Westminster government from which we’re trying to extricate ourselves.

It seems clear to me that someone who does not have a belief in or willingness to practice the advancement of opportunity and rights for all should not be considered for leadership.

That’s not to say there is a clear position for our party on all issues. This parliament will examine assisted dying legislation, for example. Conceivably, two MSPs in our party could be committed to equality and political liberalism but be justified in voting differently on this matter. One could believe the legislation may impinge on fundamental rights to life for disabled people. The other could think that each of us should at least have the choice to control our own passing in certain circumstances.

There is room for that debate. But some candidates’ beliefs simply and clearly fall outside what we should consider acceptable. And we should say that.

Michael Sturrock is an SNP parliamentary staffer and activist