Brian Taylor: Is Kate Forbes finished – or can she battle back?

If it is completely over, that would be a pity. Not because I am advocating that Ms Forbes should win. Not my role. But because Scotland needs a searching, serious debate about our collective future. Which requires a searching, serious contest in the party of devolved governance.

That debate must, of course, embrace the issue of independence. For the people of Scotland, is it desirable? For the SNP, how is it to be progressed?

But, beyond that, we need a detailed examination of our economic prospects. How are we to engineer sustainable growth? It is, frankly, grievous that this core issue is currently lost in a miasma of morality.

All my interlocutors this week were agreed that the Forbes campaign has been damaged by her expressed opposition to equal gay marriage.

To be clear, she also insisted that she would not seek to overturn existing liberal laws – and, further, would “defend to the hilt everybody’s right in a pluralistic and tolerant society to live and to love free of harassment and fear.”

But those were the afterthoughts. With what she believed was commendable frankness in response to media questions, she opened with her personal views, founded upon her adherence to the teachings of the Free Kirk.

In responding to this, the word I heard most frequently from activists was “naïve”. One even suggested to me she should have taken her line from John F Kennedy.

In the US Presidential election of 1960, JFK faced questions over his Catholic faith. He sought to pre-empt this by stressing that he was “the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic”. In short, he would receive his instructions from the people of America, not the Vatican. Perhaps Kate Forbes should have essayed the same here in Scotland.

For we live in a democracy. Not a theocracy. To adapt her words, we are not ruled by Hindu nor Muslim precepts.

Nor yet Christian doctrine, Catholic or Calvinist. We are governed by the elected. Not the Elect.

Again, to be fair, Ms Forbes fully endorses that perspective. In addition, her personal views were well known. It was, however, that early emphasis which prompted concern.

Nicola Sturgeon described Scotland as socially liberal. Not sure that is even close to being universally true but her point was made.

John Swinney went further. After stressing his own devout Christianity, he said he “profoundly” disagreed with his Cabinet colleague over gay marriage – and added that party members would need to think whether she could be an appropriate leader.

Ouch and, again, ouch. Ms Forbes sought to rebut this, querying whether it meant that a woman “holding Christian views” was disqualified from high office.

Two points. Firstly, Mr Swinney made clear he was talking about policy positions, not Christianity, however defined.

Secondly, not smart for Kate Forbes to challenge John Swinney. He is revered by the SNP. His standing in the party approximates to sanctity, even in these secular times.

Still, she is where she is. Trying to reset her campaign. Is that possible? Perhaps. One poll, of SNP supporters, suggests she is in the lead. However, many were apparently undecided – and it is members who vote, not just sympathisers.

At Holyrood this week, the departing Nicola Sturgeon insisted that any of the candidates to replace her could take on the party’s opponents and sustain the support of the Scottish people.

We shall see. It seems, however, that, for the two principal contenders at least, Ms Sturgeon should have resigned hereafter.

She leaves in the middle of a tempest over the trans issue. Inevitably, that has raised the general, moral temperature and prompted close questioning of Kate Forbes.

However, that may well have happened anyway. A related point. She has indicated her reluctance to mount a legal challenge against the UK Government’s veto on the gender recognition bill.

Frankly, that sticks in the craw for many nationalists who believe it should be instinctive for their leader to stand up for Holyrood powers. One senior figure told me it was the “breaking point” which ended potential support of Ms Forbes.

Others, however, insist she is in tune with wider opinion beyond the Twitter storm. That her intention to bargain with Westminster over the bill will, eventually, resonate.

The timing of this contest scarcely suits Humza Yousaf either. He is the Health Secretary – and this week we had a slew of negative health stats and a broadly critical report from Audit Scotland.

Ms Sturgeon defended him vigorously, noting signs of progress and citing worse figures elsewhere in the UK. Opposition leaders said he should be sacked, not promoted.

Plus gay marriage, again. Mr Yousaf voted for the broad principle but missed the final Holyrood vote in 2014. He insists he had a ministerial engagement. As The Herald disclosed, that has now been questioned.

Then there is Ash Regan, generally reckoned a distant prospect. As the moral maze became ever more intricate, she appealed for calm – which will have done her no harm.

She resigned as a minister over gender self-ID but now seems more focused upon a wider project. Ms Regan says she wants to rebuild a wider independence campaign, including Alex Salmond’s Alba Party.

Critics say that the issue of campaign co-operation is for another day, that the choice right now is for the leader of the Scottish National Party. And, ultimately, First Minister.

Overall, though, the discourse falls painfully short. Yes, moral issues matter. They may help define a candidate’s character and outlook.

But where is the competing analysis of our economic future? Of energy, including North Sea oil? Of new enterprise, perhaps linked to our universities?

Our people are struggling. Our supermarkets are rationing vegetables. A UK Minister has suggested we might usefully eat neeps.

Set aside Kennedy for now. Learn instead from the Clinton campaign. It’s the economy, stupid. Or should be.