• The morning after the day before

    Yesterday was an extraordinary day in Scotland. I don’t think that any of us really knew how tense it was all going to get until the day itself.

    There is much to celebrate in the turn-out, which was phenomenal. In recent weeks, people have engaged in a political process in ways I’ve never seen before and which to be honest I couldn’t have foreseen.

    Last night I tweeted that I was hoping for a No vote but that if it was a Yes then I hoped that the Yes would be overwhelming. In the end the vote was a slightly stronger No than most people seemed to think possible at the end. However, the truth is, no-one that I spoke to yesterday during the polling was prepared even to guess. We simply didn’t know what the outcome would be.

    I have to say that though I was clear that I was hoping for a no vote, there has been much that has impressed me in the Yes campaign. Much of that campaign was positive and throughout the campaign it did indeed seem as though the momentum lay there.

    I’ve been consistently unimpressed by the Better Together campaign. It was negative and miserable throughout. It never represented what I felt at all. I was far more impressed with the campaign run by those with whom I disagreed on the independence question itself.

    The Yes campaign won the social media battle hands down but not the wider argument. And I think the reality is that Independence has been decided for a generation. This was the time for that change if it was ever going to happen – an ineffective Labour party in Scotland, a hated coalition of  Liberal Democrats and Tories in government, charismatic and hopeful leadership on the Yes side and the most powerful street campaigning I’ve ever seen were all things that seemed to make the case for change more powerful.

    Those of us in Scotland have decided that we don’t want to leave the United Kingdom. However let the message ring out that no-one who voted yesterday wants to live in Foodbank Britain.

    I found listening to those who disagreed with me on the Independence Question that I very often agreed with them on their motivation for seeking significant change.

    I remain convinced that the only solution to the West Lothian Question that will be stable is major constitutional change in a federal direction. I’m not satisfied by the idea that Westminster can continue as usual but with Scottish MPs just not voting on matters that affect England only. I want to see an English Parliament. I want to see major reform of the House of Lords. I want to see more devolution towards local government. I want to see fairer (and slightly higher) taxation, particularly a higher council tax to pay for better local services decided on by local people.

    We have disagreed about how to achieve change but there are values that have come to the fore, largely through the incredible campaign that the Yes side have fought that we can unite around. I have many friends who will be disappointed, hugely disappointed today. However there is an enormous amount in which they can be very proud. An outstanding turnout, a campaign that brought social justice right to the fore, change being talked about by everyone in politics and political engagement across the board from people who have never cared or voted before. These things have changed Scotland for the better and when the dust settles we will see that things can never be the same again.

    One of the members of my own congregation who is one of the strongest supporters of the Yes campaign I know said to me yesterday, “Even if it is No, Yes has won”. He meant, I think that the positivity of the Yes campaign can’t be killed off and that constitutional change is coming anyway. I know that he and many others will be disappointed by the actual result. However, I agreed with him yesterday and I agree with him today.

     

19 responses to “8 Things the Churches Could Learn From the collapse of HMV”

  1. Alan McManus Avatar

    Fred and Leanne’s comments, way off the mark when it comes to St Mary’s but true to a large extent about other churches, make me realise that a vital element of the new militant atheism/ secularism (not to be confused with multiculturalism as it is totally intolerant of difference) is its online presence. Everyone likes being smug and to be a smug theist you have to spend a considerable amount of time in a good library but to be a smug atheist you need about 3 minutes online watching a video clip of someone untrained in ontology or ethics (but, say, a professor of biology) expound on Being and preach amorality. Bingo! An easy rant to borrow down the pub. It’s the Tractarian approach to evangelisation. Give it to em in byte sized chunks.

  2. Fred Garvin Avatar
    Fred Garvin

    “totally intolerant of difference”? You mean the Mainline Protestant churches and semi-Churches (Unitarians and Quakers) of North America, who’ve been preaching “Celebrate Diversity” for over 40 years while still remaining over 95% White and middle/upper middle class? “We hope to represent the future of religion”; odd, you’ve somehow managed to have a median age of 57+. Barely 9% of any Mainline Protestant body is under 31 years old.
    The Tea Party and Republican National Convention are more “diverse” than these groups.
    About as vibrant and colorful as skim milk.
    Again, why bother? You either have the worst programs to “represent our neighborhoods in our churches” or you just don’t mean it.

  3. kelvin Avatar

    I think it is very clear, Fred that Alan is not talking about mainline protestant churches in North America.

    It was very obvious to me that the issues over race and ethnicity there are very far removed from what we experience at St Mary’s and I think in the UK generally.

    That isn’t to say all is perfect but it is to say that things are very different here.

  4. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    St Mary’s is very ethnically diverse, and a heck of a lot less than 95% white and does not draw its members from one income-bracket either … nor is our median age in its fifties, I would think. Nor have I ever heard any of us suggest that one has to be religious to be moral. It would of course be wrong to be smug about these things, but then – we are all a little wrong from time to time, aren’t we?

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • The Lament Question

    Can anyone tell me why we perceive things that are sad and mournful as being beautiful? It seems such a very odd perception.

  • Sunday's Lament

    Quite a few people have asked me where the lament came from that I sang on Sunday. The answer is the it really comes from the New World being a William Billings composition. Well, that’s where it is from. I was singing my own internal recollection of hearing it on the Waterson’s album Sound, Sound…

  • David's Lamentation – Sermon for 9 August 2009

    The video camera ran out of memory this morning before it recorded the sermon, so I'm afraid I can only offer the text. However, before it ran out, it did record me singing David's Lamentation which came between the first two readings. A useful reminder that it is not only by listening to sermons that…

  • Back from Camp

    I was with the Scout’s last night at their International Jamboree at Auchengillan which is about 10 miles away from here. It is just beyond Milngavie and just, I think in the county of Stirling, which is why the Provost of Stirling was hosting a reception for visitors. [Note to foreign eyes, a Provost in…