Equal Ever After and the missing Scottish footnote

This morning I received my copy of Equal Ever After  by Lynne Featherstone. As one of campaigners from the LGBT+ community from one of the political parties that pooled resources to achieve great things in the arena of same sex marriage I wasn't going to hang around to get reading this book.

Of course I have great praise for Lynne and the role she had in making same-sex marriage happen in England and Wales, but her telling of the tale omits one very important part of the tale both of her party's and the nation's move towards that goal. The fact that before the May 2010 election Liberal Democrats in at least one part of the country were able to answer to answer questions on this that is was party policy where they were standing and they hoped that if elected they would pursue it across the UK. Two of those the candidate for Falkirk and his agent, who also happened to be the candidate next door in Linlithgow and East Falkirk,  were even able to talk about the role they had played on creating that policy.

Sadly the fact that the Scottish Liberal Democrats had debated, voted and passed a policy on equal marriage and equal civil partnership in the run up to the 2010 election does not appear to warrant a mention, not even as a footnote to history of Lynne's history of the fight for same-sex marriage. \It is one significant footnote in our party's fight for LGBT+ equality, as well as footnote in the history of LGBT+ equality in our nation that is missing.

Obviously as somebody who was there on that platform helping to propose that Scottish policy motion to conference who now finds himself back home in Northern trying to close the circle in that "corner of our United Kingdom" that has "set its face against marriage equality" my fight goes on, waiting for us all to be equal ever after.

When equal marriage emphatically isn't equal

The announcement has been made, in time I suspect for Lynne Featherstone's speech at conference tomorrow at 15:55, that David Cameron is 'emphatically' behind a consultation into 'how' not if to bring about equal civil marriage.

Yup that is what he is emphatic about.

It fails to acknowledge there there are LGB people of faith who want to have a religious ceremony and there are faith groups that want to provide it. It fails to expand civil partnership to heterosexual couples, something that Labour backed out of when they brought in civil partnerships in the first place and something that some heterosexual couples want to partake it. Where is the religious freedom for those that wish to offer like the Quakers, Unitarians and liberal Jews and those that wish to partake?

Without the detail it still leaves some room over those seeking gender reassignment. Do they still have to annul a civil partnership or divorce a marriage to then 'remarry' in their new gender or will they, if they wish to stay to stay together not have to part. What if they are of faith and want to get married again but in a religious ceremony?

David Cameron may be emphatic, the Tories are jumping up and down about how they are achieving equality, yet the consultation that they are letting go ahead doesn't cover over half the issues. Cameron is emphatic about a damp squib that will fizzle out without the full impact of what he could achieve. I pity Lynne Featherstone getting to announce this tomorrow at conference before a hall that last year passed a policy and more inclusive way forward than is even being offered to consultation next May.

The Tories are still lagging when it comes to LGBT equality. Time to catch up once again.

A Personal Statement - On Tuition Fees

The following is a personal statement I have issued as the former Liberal Democrat candidate for Linlithgow and East Falkirk in the 2010 General Election:



Last night in the House of Commons MPs voted 323 for and 302 against the proposal to increase the cap on tuition fees in England to £9000. If I had been elected on 6th May as the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk I would have been joining the 21 Liberal Democrats who upheld the Liberal Democrat party policy not to increase tuition fees but instead to look at abolishing them. This had been stated in our manifesto as well as the personal pledge that many of our candidates in May signed.

The reasons I would have done so are:

• The party had instructed us to do so, not only in the years before the election, but in motions passed since the general election in most of our federal regions upholding that commitment.
•  Because personally the increase on personal debt to students is something I personally have been campaigning against since I was an undergraduate fighting the introduction of student loans when they first came in to replace grants.
•  We would be leaving students with half a hefty amount to pay off when they leave university, which when you take in the interest payments comes to a sizable part of a second mortgage
•  Even though I would have been representing a Scottish constituency I saw that the cut of the teaching budget funded by the increase in tuition fees would have a knock on effect in Scotland were tuition fees have been abolished.

I take exception to some of the comments made by colleagues in the party I have long considered closely aligned to me on the political spectrum.

Steve Webb wrote on his blog:

"I stood on a manifesto that had literally hundreds of policies and pledges."

I thought a lot of that was aspirations, many of those had caveats dependent on the economic situation, one that didn’t no matter what the financial situation was the promise not to increase tuition fees. He goes on to say that he was elected as part of 'Coalition programme for Government', a programme that allowed for Lib Dems to abstain if the findings of the Browne Report were contrary to our beliefs. That was a concession that was made to our party over this sticky issue yet Steve and 27 others not only didn't take that option, or uphold their pledge but voted for increasing the level of tuition fees.

Lynne Featherstone another blogging MP wrote:

"For some one like me – who has always believed that education should be free – it has been a difficult decision. Sadly, my view of education (free through raising taxation) isn't on the table – or anywhere near it. That vision was ended when Labour introduced tuition fees and the principle of free education for all feel."

Thankfully my colleagues in Scotland didn't feel this way and reversed the decision in Scotland and as a result that was the aspiration of our party nationally to repeat that process in both our 2005 and 2010 manifestos. I also think that because of the general benefit to society as a whole of those who go through Higher (and Further) education that this should indeed be funded, if need be, by increased taxation. The fact that it is not on or near the table would be a reason for me to further vote against.

Last night I heard Vince Cable even say that Scotland had failed to take hard decisions, I beg to differ one that Scotland has taken in that tuition fees should be abolished and from what I understand the main parties are agreeing that they should remain abolished. That is a tough decision made in light of the current situation and one that I was signed up to as a candidate this May, that we, no matter how bad things were would phase fees out.

At least in Lynne’s favour she did have the courtesy to apologise for breaking her pledge.

However, I am most proud of the twenty one, who I feel are erroneously listed as ‘rebels’ they have stood up for what the party believes in, and how the electorate who voted for them believed they would vote. Therefore I salute Annette Brooke, Sir Menzies Campbell, Mike Crockart, Tim Farron, Andrew George, Mike Hancock, Julian Huppert, Charles Kennedy, John Leech, Stephen Lloyd, Greg Mulholland, John Pugh, Alan Reid, Dan Rogerson, Bob Russell, Adrian Sanders, Ian Swales, Mark Williams, Roger Williams, Jenny Willott and Simon Wright.

However, if Nick Clegg things that those listed above and myself are 'dreamers' because of our opposition to increasing tuition fees, I'm glad that I can still dream of a fairer and truly progressive way of funding Higher and, I want to expand it to, Further Education.

I'll not stop dreaming. I will fight on.

Even though this blog may be remaining silent over the next few months due to the nature of my work, I will be keeping up the fight. Recently I was elected as a Conference Representative for my local Liberal Democrat Party. I will not be ripping up my membership card in disgust, I will be pushing up my shirt sleeves and getting down to the business of upholding the things enshrined in the opening paragraph of the preamble to the party constitution:

"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."

I'll carry on dreaming of achieving the above, but when I'm awake I'll be fighting tooth and nail to achieve it.

Note: This statement is made in a personal capacity due to the fact that I was a Liberal Democrat candidate in the General Election in May. It is not a statement on behalf of either the West Lothian Local Party, who very graciously selected me, nor the Northern Irish Local Party of which I am now a member, nor of my current employers. 

Stonewall Hero a Humble Man of God

I'm quite sure that Scott Rennie the minister of Queen's Cross Church in Aberdeen wouldn't consider himself a hero, he is far too humble a man to do that. In fact I have very little doubt that he would merely consider this year merely one of trying to do the job he wants to do and fulfil the calling that he has.

However, at the Stonewall awards last night Scott won the hero of the year award. You may well recall how early this year his calling to his present charge caused some controversy at the General Assembly, Westboro Baptist Church members were even threatening to turn up to protest outside the meeting to decide his future. Liberal Youth Scotland arranged a counter demo to show support for Scott which has the the bigger attendance despite less notice. But Scott was no doubt most happy with finally being allowed to take up his new post and get on with looking after his flock.

Lib Dem MP Lynne Featherstone didn't win the Parliamentarian of the year award for her work but I know her work on things like the Equality Bill and lifting the blanket blood ban will not cease. It's not about awards for either of them but getting on with work. Lynne did however lose out to Ben Bradshow the first openly gay cabinet minister.

There was also the award that nobody wants to win the bigot of the year award shared between two people. Father John Owen who has said on BBC's The Big Question that the majority of child abuse was carried out by gay men. The other recipient was Jan Moir for her ill timed, ill aimed, ill informed and vindictive piece not just on Stephen Gately but gay men and the lifestyle in general. A rather late comer to the voting as it was already under way when she wrote her poisoned pen piece.

Other awards went to:

Broadcast of the Year - Corrective Rape in South Africa

Entertainer of the Year - Boyzone (accepted by Stephen Gately's husband Andrew Cowles who said thanks for all the support in recent weeks)

Journalist of the year - Johann Hari and Joan Bakewell

Publication of the Year - g3

Writer of the Year - Sarah Waters

Community Group of the Year - Allsorts youth project