In Response to Calum Cashley

Much as I love the image of Nats texting Calum Cashley with breaking news from my blog, I wonder if the last time I saw Tavish reach in his pocket to read a message it was because somebody, or my RSS fed had alerted his Blackberry, I feel his latest post needs a more thorough response than I could provide in his comments.

The crux of the matter is that the conversation that is being started under the watchful eye and listening ear of Ross Finnie is to kick off in a members only session at conference. He's highlighted the fact that I blogged during conference about how open discussion of policy takes place on the floor of our conferences and not behind closed doors and says it is hypocritical to do otherwise on this issue.

For starters this discussion is not debating a substantive policy motion it is a review of the stance that the party holds. Such a review could well have been carried out by policy committee, or any of the local parties in closed session and then brought to conference, but instead of taking a small sounding of opinion it is looking at the broad church of opinion. By doing so forthright views will no doubt be expressed, something that even if it was a policy debate wouldn't be that toned down, but within the confines of fellow party members. Yes it may prove less embarrassing to senior members of the party than certain interventions during the Bournemouth debate but that is not the reason for it being a closed session. It is a party business session at this stage, along with party governance and finances these sessions are members only sessions. Hardly any dark sorcery, although such comments from SNP sources does not really help those of us who want to back a referendum on the issue of independence get that message across to our party colleagues.

Indeed the fact that Ross is leading this reappraisal is good it is actually the fulfilment of one of his leadership election pledges to look into what the party thinking was on this issue. I genuinely do not know how this conversation within the Scottish Lib Dems will turn out. There are points that I have made in public on this blog in the past that I will re-emphasise, there are others that I have only raised in private with fellow party members, I think such a session and process is the ideal environment for others to do likewise. After all not every party member is going to be so bold as to say in a blog post or from the conference platform that the leader may be wrong, if outsiders then pick it up as a split rather than a disagreement of ideas.

We shall have to see just what comes out of the process which Tavish himself called for.

Now I wonder how long before SNP or Lib Dem's have their small boxes in their pockets vibrate and light up with a strange ringing noise after I press publish?

PS In response to Calum Cashley's comment that I will soon be voting SNP, I'd love to be able to do so in Westminster and Holyrood election under a fair STV system. I'm glad to see he is wanting the same, I'll admit it's unlikely that they will get my first preference they are far too illiberal on a number of issues and far to centrist for my liking. But it is hardly breaking news or worth holding his breathe for, indeed I have already done the deed in 2007, just didn't vote for them with my first preference. I do believe that part of my vote will have counted for a SNP councillor mind.

Is Lack of Equal Marriage Rights a Form of Apartheid?

Now I know that some members of my own party who consider the issue of same sex marriage a matter on conscience and not one we should form a firm policy on. However, with the aid of Calum Cashley the SNP PPC for Edinburgh North and Leith I’d like to prick that conscience just a little.

We as Liberal Democrats are the party of equality. The preamble to our constitution opens:

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

So let’s look at the parallel that Calum draws between Civil Partnerships and marriage designation in Apartheid era South Africa. There was a designation of interracial marriage which was viewed as substandard, below other partnerships. There were plenty of Liberals whose conscience led them to protest against that state of affairs, a young Peter Hain among them. There was no problem in forming policy against the Apartheid regime.

Calum says he not sure what the differences are between a Civil Partnership and a marriage, there are a number.

He gets the first one that there is a distinction in the name just as same sex couples cannot have a marriage; mixed-sexed couples cannot get a civil partnership. The Government claims it is the same yet there is a distinction there, one group is set aside from the rest of society with a second class designation.

The next issue is that while you can have a religious, humanist or civil marriage as a mixed sex couple, a religious or humanist celebrant is not able to solemnise a same sex union, if they want to. The assumption is that because you are in a same sex relationship you are outside the religious flock and would not want to join with your life partner in a religious context.

The final thrust of the equal marriage campaign is dealing with gender recognition and the anomaly that they face should one partner seek to alter their legally recognised gender under the terms of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. They are no longer able to remain either married or civil partnered once that event happens even they remain in love and wish to remain together. They then of course would also face the issue if they wish to re-union in not being able to have the same type of union as previously.

So while Calum and I have a different idea of the governance style of what form a fair society for Scotland will take we can agree on this issue.

Update: I Uhmed and Ahhed about the title for this post since I wrote it, but decided to change it from "A Nats Backing For Marriage Fairness" to the new one to reflect on Calum's comments. In the end I decided to take a leaf out of Charlotte Gore's book.