Post Salmond

So this afternoon Alex Salmond has announced that he stepping down as leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland. So as well as asking what next for the UK nation as a whole we are now asking what next for the SNP?

Firstly as has long been muted Salmond himself has already been grooming his successor, it was she who had a major role in planning the referendum agenda and steering the Yes Campaign. Nicola Sturgeon the MSP for Glasgow Southside has been the Deputy First Minister since 2007 and been the Depute Leader of the SNP for the last 10 years. If she were to fulfill what many see as her destiny, if a little earlier than they expected she would be the first women to lead any devolved power in the UK.

But the question is would there be a coronation or would there be a challenger? If the latter who might the competition come from.

One possibility is like Alex Salmond an alumni of Linlithgow Academy and with his was also expelled from the party for being part of the 79 Group his long term friend Kenny MacAskill. While Alex has mellowed on the demand for a republican socialist stance, MacAskill has said that once Scotland voted for Independence there would be a referendum on whether to keep the monarchy. He stepped down from standing with Sturgeon on a joint ticket to be her Depute when Salmond decided to restand for the leadership himself on a ticket with her instead. It is possible that that loyalty may be repaid with him become her deputy ten years on so that may be one reason why he wouldn't want to upset the apple cart.

Another alternative might be John Swinney who had been leader between Alex Salmond and Alex Salmond from 2000-2004. Since 2007 he has been the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth a job which many within the party would say he has be great at. Especially in his first four years when he had to get through his budget as a minority administration. He is closely associated with the gradualist wing of the party, which in light of the failure to secure independence might come to the fore of people's thinking as something that is needed to make the most of the negotiations that will ensue for more powers for Scotland. The down side to a Swinney bid is that in his previous term in charge, unlike Salmond  who had been successful first time, he saw the parties fortunes slump.

The only other person with potential serious intent to lead the party is the man who challenged Swinney back in 2000. Alex Neil had the backing of the fundamentalist wing of the party. Instead of looking for a gradulaist approach it may be that some within the party are seeking a figure head to keep up the fundamentalist approach, if so Neil would be the natural figurehead for such feelings. Some may well feel that Salmond wasn't seeking to separate enough from the rest of the UK and was really fighting on a ticket of keeping the best bits of being in the UK and therefore the voters knew it wasn't real independence. Only if that is the case would Neil stand a serious chance of taking the leadership but it is the mood of the party that is important.

Nicola is in pole position, but as she also was heavily involved in the referendum campaign it is unlikely that she will go totally unchallenged from within. It depends which wing of the party is most angry with the way the referendum campaign was built up to be a success only to fall 10% short that may well decide who will take her on, and such a challenge may even come from both wings.

One thing though is certain. We live in interesting times.

Alex Neil's failure on registrars over equal marriage opt out

There are times that I despair and this is one of them. Alex Neil the Scottish Health Secretary has said he will allow those registrars who have a conscientious objection to abstain from carrying out same-sex marriages when they come into force.

Now the group that I believe that would most object to carrying out this public service are those of faith*, simply because in the past that is who has raised the objections, like Lillian Ladele.

Now first things first, these people have signed up for a job in which they are carrying out civic duties. They are not at work to judge on someones past marital history, level or lack of faith, race, age or sexual orientation. They are only there to insist that the service they are about to perform is legal and that there is no just impediment from them carrying out a civil contract.

People of faith may object to someone who is divorced from getting remarried, after all certain churches refuse to carry out that service. Yet we don't hear objections to that happening.

If Christian registrars are basing their objections on the bible then surely they should also object to people of faith marrying non-believers even in a civil ceremony. The bible tells them that believers should not be unequally yoked to non-believers, yet they carry out these ceremonies without objection.

They claim that marriage is there to lead to procreation and the creation of children, yet they are either praying for a miracle or ignoring the fact that some of the women who they marry are beyond child bearing age, they will marry  pensioners without objection.

What about when it comes to race? Or people of a non Judeo-Christian religion? Or even a non-Christian?

So why is Mr Neil giving them one get out clause when it comes to marrying people of the same sex.

The Bill before Scotland and the Act that came into being in England and Wales gives faith groups the right to come up with their own interpretation of what they will do will this legislation. Some faith groups will want to get on with carrying out same-sex marriages as soon as possible, others like the Church of England should they eventually choose to so will have to jump through all manner of hoops to amend the Act.

But registrars are they to carry out a civic duty. It they want to speak about their religious beliefs they should probably enter the ministry in whatever form that takes. There they can wax lyrical to their hearts content about who should or should not be married, they even have the right to veto who they marry, unless they enter the Church of England priesthood and one of the couple lives in the parish. It is not the place of any public registrar and more than any doctor, shopkeeper, bus driver, teacher, hotelier or whoever to deny an LGBT individual their public service because of their sexuality.

He is saying that it is up to all local authorities to ensure there is adequate provision, but the individual can object. What in some of smallest local authorities those based on the isles. Especially in Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Western Isles) where in 2006 all the registrars there objected to carrying out a civil partnership ceremony and council initially got around it as there legally no requirement for a ceremony, they just drew up the contract. Eventually they were forced to bring in registrars from elsewhere.

So will the same dilemma face Comhairle nan Eilean Siar because of Neil's latest utterance on this matter. Sadly I think most probably and the LGBT community of the area will suffer once more while a solution is reached.

* Point of reference: I mean some not all, the writer is a Christian who happens to be gay. 

Update Scottish readers will not be surprised to see John Mason MSP be one of the first to support this stance of his SNP colleague Alex Neil, though he compares it as the same as abortion. Now in abortion, irregardless of your stance you can see that something that has the potential for life is no longer able to meet that potential. As far as I'm aware there are no plans for a living sacrifice to be part of same-sex marriage, so the parallel is possibly a bit moot. 

Jae Kay also has his own take on this story.