The lost art of debate - and disagreeing well - in Scottish politics and culture

Along with new faces, there’s the likelihood of an increase in Scottish Green and Reform MSPs, meaning the already fractious debating chamber could become far more obnoxious and even less collegiate.

I may be proven wrong, of course, and said newbies will offer marked improvement. But many people are desperate for some kind of centre to hold – I count myself among them - while recognising our divisive times make that ever more unlikely.

Both Reform and the Scottish Greens have outlandish ideas, from opposite sides of the political spectrum. Whatever happens, I’m guessing times will continue to be interesting, not least as Reform UK’s commitment to Scottish devolution is, at best, a little sketchy. They’ve been handed ample ammunition for such a stance this past decade, much to the despair of those who want our Parliament to be more democratically robust. Should Reform do as well as some polls suggest, the need to defend devolution itself will become ever more urgent.

There’s no single reason for the perception the Scottish Parliament is failing to live up to its founding principles. In the mix are the inadequacies of the committee system to perform a scrupulous revising function; the hangover of the Scottish independence referendum; the longevity of the SNP government, and many incompetent legislators and civil servants.

But if I had to choose one thing that exemplifies the problem inherent to the place, it might be the number of times Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone – who also steps down in May – has to intervene with “Let’s hear one another!” during First Minister’s Questions and other debates.

As a former Modern Studies teacher, I love watching a good debate, and took pride in organising them in classes. I’m also fond of taking part in such things, something I did regularly in my old life in the arts and culture sector. Over the last decade, however, the art of disagreeing well – in both politics and wider culture - has fallen out of favour.

Social media is partly to blame. But the offline equivalent of muting and blocking, in the form of ostracization and no-platforming ‘problematic’ voices instead of engaging with them, has been wholly normalised by our cultural institutions. Ie, the very spaces robust debate should be encouraged and facilitated.

As it should be in our parliament. But, sometimes, watching debates in the chamber, I’ll find myself disappointed – even by politicians I otherwise admire – flinging barbs unfairly at opponents, or heckling insults. This isn’t a bland call for kindness. It’s a call for more consistently skilled rebuttal of political opponents who often richly deserve it.

Ad hominem insults, or simple mockery, however, makes for a bad debate. It’d have got you an F in my classroom. Our parliament should be rather more elevated than a bunch of teenagers when it comes to having important discussions.

“Our democracy relies on debate, and debate requires at least two people who disagree,” said Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes in her final contribution to the Scottish Parliament last week.

“Disagreement does not require bitterness, animosity or malice,” she went on. “I hope that the next Parliament can exemplify the joy of dispute and debate in the service of our constituents.”

It was a good speech from a competent, well-liked politician, who I feel will be a loss to Scottish politics.

Forbes has said a desire to spend time with her family, and the incompatibility of this with long commutes and the demands of her high-profile role are her reasons for stepping down.

But I can’t help but wonder if her final comments to parliament indicate that unfair smears made against her from political opponents over the years – including, sometimes, from SNP colleagues - have also taken their toll. In 2023, when Forbes was campaigning to be SNP leader, she was asked whether she would have voted for equal marriage if she’d been a legislator ten years earlier. She said no. She was also asked about her views on abortion, and said she herself would never have one.

She also made perfectly clear she had no intention of campaigning for either equal marriage or abortion rights to be revoked.

While my own position differs from Forbes on both issues, her views are entirely consistent and predictable given her religion – she is a member of the Free Church of Scotland

Religious freedom is an important tenet of a healthy liberal democracy. Her faith and subsequent ethics aren’t incompatible with that, as, unlike with some other belief systems, she doesn’t insist on shutting down those who don’t share her convictions.

Most importantly, on both issues, there’s no live debate even happening. Forbes holds a minority view, of which she’s perfectly aware. The subsequent stramash following her comments three years ago, unleashed by the likes of her hot-headed, then-MP colleague Mhairi Black, who railed on Twitter that Forbes was choosing “to allow (her) religion to try and deny me my basic human rights” was not just untrue, therefore, it was wholly unedifying and needlessly divisive.

Black got a lot of engagement, however. Likes, snark, and online abuse against Forbes followed by the bucket-load. Offline, arts venue Summerhall last year felt compelled to apologise to its Edinburgh Fringe show residents for Forbes being in their building, when she took part in a political interview series.

It’s beyond tiresome how Scotland has been conducting itself lately, in parliament, in our cultural institutions, both on and offline. As we head into the unknown of a new parliamentary term, may the echo of Alison Johnstone’s plea for legislators – and all of us - to please “hear one another” echo.