Sturgeon: I do not agree with Forbes being banned by Fringe venue
The former SNP leader told reporters in Edinburgh that she disagreed with cancel culture.
It comes amid a row over the Summerhall venue's decision not to have Ms Forbes back at any future events following a fringe show organised by The Herald newspaper.
The venue has reportedly suggested that John Swinney's deputy posed a safety and wellbeing risk to its staff over her views on trans rights.
Ms Forbes is a devout Christian and a member of the socially conservative Free Church of Scotland.
She was criticised during her SNP leadership battle for her stance on gay marriage, abortion and trans rights.
Ms Sturgeon, who appointed Ms Forbes as finance secretary while she was first minister, was asked whether she agreed with Summerhall's decision.
'I don't agree with cancel culture and I don't agree with that,' she said.
She added that she took no responsibility for the venue's decision.
Summerhall, which has received more £600,000 in government funding, previously held Herald Unspun live events with Mr Swinney and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, the latter of whom has U-turned over his stance on gender self-ID.
Ms Forbes expressed disappointment at the venue and said she 'fervently' believes in freedom of speech.
'Any effort to cancel people, especially politicians, undermines democracy,' she said.
'Many people attended the Herald event and it is important that we could freely discuss and debate matters in a respectful manner.
'I respect and acknowledge the fact that, in a liberal democracy, there are people who will agree with me and others who will disagree with me.
'That is all the more reason to create events where the audience and journalists can question politicians openly, as the Herald did.'
In a statement, the Summerhall venue said: 'This event was booked as a series of long-form interviews prior to the guest list being confirmed.
'Summerhall Arts primary concern is the safety and wellbeing of the artists and performers we work with, and going forward we will be developing robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that would prevent this oversight in our bookings process happening again.'
Shona Robison, who succeeded Ms Forbes as Finance Secretary, also defended her colleague, calling Summerhall's decision 'unwise and unnecessary'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Spectator
Tories accuse Sturgeon of breaking ministerial code over indyref2
The SNP's former Dear Leader Nicola Sturgeon released her memoir this week – but it has not quite had the reception she anticipated. The trailed excerpts prompted Alex Salmond's allies to accuse Sturgeon of besmirching her former mentor's name, brought her failed gender reform bill to the fore and confused pro-independence supporters after the Queen of the Nats hinted she was considering a move to, er, London. Now another admission in the 450-page tome has led the Scottish Tories to write to the Scottish Permanent Secretary to examine whether Sturgeon broke the ministerial code. Craig Hoy posted his letter to Joe Griffin on Twitter today, fuming that Sturgeon's memoir had revealed the former first minister had 'wasted taxpayers' money on a doomed court case for party political reasons'. In his letter, Hoy stresses: In the book, the former first minister stated that the Scottish government's reference to the Supreme Court on whether it had the power to hold an independence referendum unilaterally was 'in all likelihood impossible' to succeed. The Scottish ministerial code states that ministers and officials should 'ensure that their decisions are informed by appropriate analysis of the legal considerations and that the legal implications of any course of action are considered at the earliest opportunity'. If the then-first minister has now publicly admitted that she thought it was 'impossible' for this court reference to succeed, yet proceeded with it anyway, this constitutes a clear failure to follow the legal implications of her chosen course of action at the earliest opportunity. Nicola Sturgeon suggested that the reason she proceeded with the reference was because she was 'in a bind' with her party members and supporters. The Supreme Court reference ended up costing taxpayers a quarter of a million pounds. This political use of public money is in clear violation of paragraph 1.4(i) of the ministerial code which states: 'Ministers must not use public resources for party political purposes;'. He went on: Nicola Sturgeon is no longer first minister, so action can no longer be taken against her under the ministerial code, but could you as Permanent Secretary confirm whether you believe this spending complied with the requirements laid out in the code, given Ms Sturgeon's recent comments? If not, will the Scottish government be taking any action to recover the public funds that were spent at the direction of Nicola Sturgeon for what were clearly party political purposes? Good heavens! Has Sturgeon landed herself in hot water over this rather revealing confession? Stay tuned…
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
You can't demand seats in the Lords and still be an establishment rebel, Mr Farage
As soon as Nigel Farage wrote to Keir Starmer demanding that the prime minister allow him to make some nominations to the House of Lords, I reached for my well-thumbed copy of Reform's 'contract' with the voters at the last election. In its first 100 days, the document says, a Reform government would start to ' replace the crony-filled House of Lords with a much smaller, more democratic second chamber'. It is easy to mock, so let us enjoy the contrast between Farage's high-minded manifesto promises and his demand that some of his cronies should join all the other cronies in the upper house. Let us, in particular, enjoy the next two sentences in Reform's manifesto. Readers wanting to know how this 'more democratic' chamber might be constituted are dismissed briskly: 'Structure to be debated.' The structure of a more democratic second chamber has been debated for more than 100 years; it seems unlikely that anything will be decided in 100 days. Then there is this gem: 'Immediate end of political appointees.' As St Augustine didn't quite say, Lord make it immediate, but not yet. Before the arrival of a Reform government and the immediate end of political appointees, Farage would like the prime minister to ennoble some political appointees on his behalf. It is not fair, the Reform leader says in his letter, that 'the Greens, DUP, Plaid Cymru and UUP have 13 peers between them, but Reform UK has none'. The Scottish National Party also has none, but that is because it disagrees with the House of Lords and means it. Reform, on the other hand, disagrees with the House of Lords but thinks it is a 'democratic disparity' – not that Britain has an appointed upper house but that Reform isn't in it. It is not as if Farage's parties have never had representatives in the Lords. Malcolm Pearson, a former leader of the UK Independence Party, is still a member, sitting as a non-affiliated peer. David Stevens, former chair of United Newspapers when it owned the Daily Express, was also Ukip and is now non-affiliated. Claire Fox, the former Brexit Party MEP, is also a non-affiliated peer. Pearson and Stevens were originally Conservative peers but switched, whereas Fox was nominated by Boris Johnson as a way of mischievously celebrating Britain's departure from the EU. But Farage hasn't been able to hold onto any of them and now wants to put some of his current allies in the Lords. The Times lists Ann Widdecombe, Nick Candy and Zia Yusuf as possible candidates. It is not going to happen. 'This is the same Nigel Farage that called for the abolition of the House of Lords and now wants to fill it with his cronies,' said John Healey, the defence secretary, this morning. 'I'm not sure that parliament is going to be benefiting from more Putin apologists like Nigel Farage.' The constitutional position is simple: nominations to the Lords are a matter for the Crown, as advised by the prime minister. The monarch is a cypher; Keir Starmer is the sole decision-maker. He may choose to invite other party leaders to make nominations, but that is entirely up to him. David Cameron and Boris Johnson, when they were going through green phases, even allowed the Green Party of England and Wales to nominate – Jenny Jones in 2013 and Natalie Bennett in 2019. But it is up to the prime minister, who usually allows him or herself to be fettered by the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission – although Johnson overruled it when it advised against making Peter Cruddas, the Tory former treasurer, a peer. It might be tempting for Starmer to agree to Farage's request. It would make it harder for Farage to present himself as the doughty outsider, locked out of the Establishment. It would mean that Reform had more public representatives and therefore more chances that one or more of them would embarrass the party. And it would be the responsible thing to do, given that there is a real chance that Farage might soon be prime minister: he ought then to have some back-up in the House of Lords. But it is not going to happen, and Farage knows it is not going to happen. His letter is a classic August news story, designed to get attention and to drive home the point that Reform, the most popular party in the country, is treated as unrespectable by the establishment parties. At a time when anti-government and anti-establishment feeling is running high, Farage's status as an outsider is a priceless asset to him.
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Manchester Pride history: from 80s Gay Olympics to one of Britain's biggest public events
From protests to parties, Britain has plenty of Pride events that celebrate queer liberation – but Manchester's blockbuster weekend jamboree remains one of the best-attended. Manchester Pride has continued to grow since its beginnings, with the aim of promoting inclusivity across the whole of the city, calling for positive change and using the event to support LGBT+ businesses and charities. This year's theme for the event is 'love' – recognising love as a source of strength and resilience for LGBT+ people and helping queer people have the courage to be themselves. When is Manchester Pride? It takes place over the August bank holiday weekend (Saturday 22 August - Monday 25 August) – a date used by Manchester's LGBT+ community for 45 years for celebratory events rooted in activism, often raising funds for the community and charities too. It has blossomed into one of Britain's biggest annual Pride celebrations. Events take place all over the city, but the parade snakes through the city centre, heading past Canal Street and the city's gay village which hosts a huge street party. This year, a Mardi Gras music and performance event will be at Depot Mayfield – one of Manchester's leading event spaces, and there's youth and family events, as well as late night parties with some iconic queer artists. Manchester Pride's parade is a free event, though there are ticketed elements such as the Mardi Gras and the Gay Village Party. You can buy tickets for them here. How did Manchester Pride begin? The city's Pride celebration roots go back to the 1980s in what is now the Gay Village neighbourhood in the city centre, centered around Canal street. Known as the beating heart of the city's LGBT+ community, it's always been regarded as a safe space for the community, where people could express their identity without fear of persecution. Here, the first Manchester Gay Pub and Club Olympics took place on the August bank holiday weekend in 1985, taking inspiration from school sports day, featuring wholesome competitive games with a camp edge such as an egg and spoon race and tug of war, all judged by drag queens. But despite the celebrations at the time, hostility and homophobia were still rife. The gay village, still largely an underground scene, was raided by police for 'licentious dancing'. In 1988, more than 20,000 people came together to protest in the streets against Section 28 – legislation that prevented schools and local authorities from 'promoting homosexuality' or reflecting it in a positive light. It was this activism, along with many others around the UK, that formed the basis of Pride parades today. What does the Manchester Pride organisation support? In 2007, Manchester Pride became a registered charity and campaigns for LGBT+ rights and equality, while also celebrating the community. It supports grassroot initiatives by giving them a platform at the event, as well as its grants programme which financially supports local groups or charities with donations between £250 and £11,000, and hosts events throughout the year too. Since 2021, there have been 148 grants given out and money generated by the weekend for Greater Manchester is estimated to be £104.8m since 2021. Though its charity status is fairly new, previously the events and celebrations over the August bank holiday weekend raised funds from ticket sales and bucket donations and supported HIV and AIDs charities, when the diseases resulted in many deaths among the gay community. In 1991, The Village Charity created an earlier iteration of Manchester's Pride, known as the Manchester Mardi Gras which raised £15k for HIV and AIDs causes too. Like all Pride events, the key and everlasting message is that it's not just a weekend-long or single day event, it's an all-year effort supporting and uplifting the community. You can get involved with working with the charity or volunteering at an event too – find out more here.
