• The Silliest Thing I’ve Read about Scottish Independence

    We are, of course, currently living through the run up to a vote to determine whether Scotland will remain within the United Kingdom or breakaway to form a new country.

    I’ve just read the silliest and most foolish thing that I’ve ever read about Independence, published this morning in the Huffington Post.

    Love America and its people though I do, I would have to say that not all of its citizens are terribly knowledgeable about other parts of the world. Very many Europeans have stories to tell of the ignorance of Americans abroad, such as the ones I met who conversed with me for half an hour in a train in France before asking me what language we speak in Scotland. (They thought it was “garlic”). When I was travelling over there recently, the kind of people I was staying with were the kind of Americans who do know a bit about the world and even they were embarrassed by the things some of their fellow citizens say.

    This article in the HuffPo today tries to align progressive Christianity with Scottish Nationalism. Indeed, the headline describes this alignment as a perfect fit.

    The “struggle” for independence is compared to standing in solidarity with the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, the end of apartheid and the attempt to end genocide in Darfur.

    Now, I may think that the argument for Scottish Independence tends towards the fanciful sometimes but there’s no-one I know who is in that camp who would make such silly claims.

    If Scotland becomes independent it is very possible that we will witness the birth of a Western democracy in which national security is achieved through education rather than by military prowess and in which the wealth of a nation is tied to the well-being of ordinary people rather than upon the solvency of financial institutions. And who among Progressive Mainline Protestants cannot support such ideals as these?

    The author of this seems to have stumbled upon the SNP website and believed every word as gospel truth. He is a Presbyterian minister in California. He works at Foothill Presbyterian Church and my facebook feed is filling up with folk who think they’ve got an unusually ignorant minister, even for America.

    He goes on to make a comparison between the place of Scotland in the UK to that of Tibet in relation to China. (His argument is that if “progressive” Americans don’t speak out about Scotland then they should keep quiet about Tibet).

    All I can say is that the tanks are not rolling by on Great Western Road.

    Scotland faces a great deal of uncertainty over this referendum. I fall into the majority of people living here who are not persuaded that Independence would be a good thing.

    Just read that last sentence again if you don’t live in Scotland – yes, a majority of people who live here don’t want (or are at least not yet persuaded) that Scotland should go it alone.

    There are arguments for and against Independence. It is a conversation that we need to have here. It is a matter that needs to be settled. However, there is no getting away at the moment from the fact that the majority of people here don’t want it. That may change but it does rather puncture the idea that Scotland is an oppressed minority in which mainstream religious people will automatically fight for the right to a separate future.

    Scotland clearly could become Independent. The question is whether it should.

    I’m not persuaded that it should at this time. That’s partly because I care about Scotland and am simply not persuaded that the bucolic future outlined by the Scottish National Party on their website would be likely to come to pass. Another reason I’m unpersuaded is that I care about the rest of the UK and wouldn’t like to condemn it to Conservative party rule for generations. (Without Scottish MPs the House of Commons would tilt even further to the right and what we’ve seen recently is more than enough to make us fear the outcome of that).

    No doubt there are some who having seen the effects of Tory rule think that the answer is for Scotland to break away. I don’t think that. I think the response to poor government is to change the government not change the constitutional settlement of these islands.

    The idea of Americans trying to align that with religion is chilling. The money that poured in from the USA to fund Irish terrorism should remind us of how little some folk understand about how to keep the peace.

    Oh, and by the way, the argument that Christians must necessarily support independence for Scotland has nothing to do with Tibet. It is more like the idea that Christians should support the attempts to free Texas from the hegemony of the rest of the USA. There’s a minority of religious republicans think that’s a good idea after all.

    Fortunately there’s a solid majority of people who think they are nuts.

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

  1. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

    There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.

      I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”

        You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.

        It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.

        Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.

        I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.

        1. Graham Evans Avatar
          Graham Evans

          David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.

          1. David Evans Avatar
            David Evans

            Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.

            However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.

  2. Iain Brodie Browne Avatar
    Iain Brodie Browne

    Firstly thank you for your posting.
    I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
    I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
    Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
    I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
    My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

    My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

    http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

  3. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks for commenting, Andy.

      I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.

      When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.

      It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.

  4. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    Kelvin,

    It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

    1. Graham Evans Avatar
      Graham Evans

      David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Episcopal Elections

    Reforming the Episcopate – well, why not? The idea of a geographic diocese is under particular threat. It is as much under threat from the internet as it is from the anti-women, anti-gay groups. I don’t think that territorial organisation is proving very effective in church life. Remember the parish system? So, what comes next?…

  • The 23rd Sigh

    This is doing the rounds at the moment and was forwarded to me by e-mail from someone who had been given it by someone who is no stranger to ring, crook and funny hat. The 23rd Sigh: A Psalm of Liberal America Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want. He maketh logs to be…

  • Murder at the Vicarage

    I’m not going to go into the gory details, but Tilly has gone up in my estimation considerably.

  • Sermon 5 December 2004 – Advent 2

    In the name of God, Creator, Redeemer and Liberator. AMEN In a moment or two, I am going to speak about John the Baptist ? the fiery prophet who stalks through Advent as though it belongs to him alone. Before I do that though, I want to pause and take stock ? for that is…