Who can voters trust in Scottish politics?

Now, though, after almost 10-years, things are about to change – and as they do, an interesting question has arisen. While the public are, undoubtedly, discussing who the next First Minister might be; another point of discussion has arisen – based around the role of religion in modern politics.

This, of course, became a subject of interest based on the comments made by Finance Secretary – and leadership contender – Kate Forbes; who has been very open about her faith. In interviews, she’s spoken about how it shapes the way she looks at the world, and how she views things like equal marriage and unwed couples having children.

Ms Forbes has insisted this would not affect policy. The SNP and its membership, however, has been left grappling with the question of how her views – different to that held by the current First Minister – would affect the electorate’s perception of the party.

As an academic, I specialise in leadership – and the subject of whether or not personal beliefs matter is something which has been extensively researched, providing answers to several key questions. The first of which is whether or not leaders are entitled to personal beliefs; and, if so; should they express them?

Dr Christian Harrison: A de facto referendum could work for the SNP

That initial question is a simple one – we are all entitled to personal beliefs and viewpoints. It is perhaps more worrying to consider an individual who believes in nothing, as opposed to something specific. When we say “belief”, this is not specific to religion; nor does it exclude it. But it could refer to things such as political leanings, our opinions on immigration, the tax system or even our views on management structures and leadership itself.

The question of whether or not these should be expressed is more complex, and it ties into a separate key question – this being, do they affect how we view the leader?

In the case of Ms Forbes – regardless of how your views align with what she has said – she has, seemingly, been very honest. Generally, in society, we look for our politicians to be honest, and view this as a positive trait. Rather than question whether honesty really is the best policy in politics, we must make a distinction between honesty and openness. While we may wish for a leader to express their views and be open, from their perspective this may not be advantageous. It is inevitable, for better or worse, that this will affect our perception of them.

This, presumably, is something the team surrounding Sir Keir Starmer has recognised – and as Labour surged up in opinion polls; Sir Keir treads carefully, playing a careful hand when it came to expressing opinions on potentially divisive subjects.

This approach is typically only beneficial in the short term. Loyalty in a leader is typically formulated through a leader standing for something – particularly, but not only, in political situations. As human beings, we need justification within ourselves to support an individual.

So, what does this mean for Kate Forbes? We already know that this will – perhaps positively, perhaps negatively – affect how some party members and voters perceive her; but perception is only one factor here. The next key question we must look at is what it means for our trust?

Perhaps paradoxically, openness in leadership does not necessarily mean increased trust, nor does honesty. This is not, of course, an endorsement of the opposite approach – but the phrase “don’t shoot the messenger” exists for a reason. Ms Forbes has insisted her beliefs would not affect policy. To some, this will not matter. Their perception will shape their trust and, subsequently, their vote. On the other hand, some people who do not share her beliefs will value her honesty.

Dr Christian Harrison: What's so bad about changing your mind?

It is rare, but sometimes we are willing to put aside personal beliefs if we view a leader as the “right person” to achieve a particular goal – generally something we believe strongly in, or urgently require. In this case, the target of the SNP membership may well be independence. If they view Kate Forbes as the most likely person to deliver it this may also shape their decision on whether or not to back her.

Of course, every question applied to Ms Forbes can be applied to her leadership rivals – Ash Regan has claimed that her party is being “held hostage” by the Scottish Green party and has not ruled out readmitting former First Minister Alex Salmond to her party. These are comments which some will support strongly, and others will vehemently oppose.

Humza Yousaf has also been pressed on the issue of equal marriage – with some former ministers claiming he deliberately skipped a vote on the matter. He has, however, pushed back stating that Scotland should not have a First Minister who is opposed to it. The question of trust once again rears its head.

Regardless of the outcome, the leadership race has created a challenging starting point for the next First Minister. Personal beliefs have been at the forefront of this discussion, against a backdrop of trust; and how we should perceive each contender. When Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister, she was, on the whole, received positively by those who back independence and her party.

The new First Minister faces a fractured Yes movement – alongside the challenge of winning support from voters undecided on the constitution. The run-up to the Westminster and Holyrood elections will be extremely interesting.

Our view of a political party is typically fuelled by what we make of its leader; and it seems, at least in the short term, the perception of the next First Minister – whoever they may be – will be shaped by personal beliefs, as much as it will be by policy.

Christian Harrison is a Reader in Leadership at the University of the West of Scotland