Kate Forbes misses out the liberalism of same-sex marriage legislation

 So Kate Forbes, who at the time of writing this, is running in the leadership election of the Scottish National Party has said she would have voted against same-sex marriage legislation at the time, if she had been elected to Holyrood. She is also accusing others of being illiberal who speak out against her views.

The irony is that same-sex marriage was from the time was written as policy the whole way up to legislation shows how liberal you can be, while not excluding other. You see same-sex marriage legislation could have forced faith groups to carry out such marriages. However, nobody in a same sex relationship wants to celebrate or have that recognised in somewhere they don't feel welcome. That is why in my opinion one of the key phrases in same sex marriage legislation is "allow faith groups that wish to do so". 

You see prior to SSM legislation nobody could carry out a same sex marriage, not in civil law, in a faith setting or in Scotland by a humanist celebrate. At this point I'll ignore the fact that at Lib Dem Federal level the policy for Same Sex Marriage had to be amended to allow humanist celebrants to carry out mixed sex mrriages (which had only been possible in Scotland up until then). You see when drafting the policy in Scotland it was clear that nobody would be forced to carry out same-sex marriages. 

But I hear you say what about making registrars carry out same-sex marriages. Those who raise an argument about this based on their religious perspective seem to leave their religious views at the door when they marry divorced couples or even couples who Kate Forbes would say were wrong already had children.

You see SSM is a legislation that enables faith groups to come to their own decisions. With the exception of the Church of England and Church in Wales that some people thought it would be better to legislation against those churches solely making a decision on their own, and thus amended to exclude them from the enabling to carry out such marriage if they wanted to.

But it is something I have faced through the 13 years that there has actually been a Lib Dem policy in place for SSM. Something that I am proud to have had a hand in When people in faith groups accuse it of impinging on them when n fact the only thing impinging on them is their own views. It is ironicly something that I still struggle with coming from my own church The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, although I do feel excuded from there because of the judgement those in high places put on people from the LGBT+ community. In a strange way Covid actually makes my church accessible to me once more even though I haven't set foot in it for years.

The irony is that today a spokesperson for the Free Church of Scotland, of which  Kate Forbes is a member said:

"It is lamentable that Kate's honest adherence to simple traditional values would, for some, disqualify her from contributing to the public good of Scotland.

"Kate Forbes is standing on the basis of her policies - the fact that she is being criticised for her Christian convictions shows a level of bigotry that has no place in a pluralistic and diverse society." 

As I have pointed out above the views themselves are actually protected in the legislation she is opposed to. But the Free Church like one or two others likes to play the victim in all this.

It was faith that made homosexuality illegal in the first place and every step of the way LGBT+ people have had to slowly move towards equality, not getting there in one step like banning did, but incrementally. At every step we are told that people of faith don't agree with loosening the hod they have over our civil lives, while some of our are also in dialogue with them in relation to our faith lives. Kate Forbes has put this front and fore of her campaign during her launch, yet apparently we are not to take her stances as a step towards leading a Government as a possible move to restrict freedoms. If we speak up against it we are the illiberal ones, despite constantly bending over backwards to get small change after small change to not upset those with certain faith views to object to everything.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics: The DUP number game

The DUP are claiming that their 9 MPs being greater than the SNP's 9 and Plaid Cymru's 3 puts them in a position to be at the leaders' debates ahead of these other regional parties.

But look at it another way the DUP will be fielding between 16-18 candidates (the number is variable as they are still talking about possible deal(s) with the UUP), this is against the SNP who will be standing 59 and Plaid who will be standing 40.

Of those 59 and 40 they will all face a Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat and a high proportion also facing a Green and UKIP candidate. Of the DUP candidates there may be a handful who face Conservatives, UKIP and Green candidates. Not one will face a Labour or Lib Dem candidate (although they may be facing a member of one of those parties under a different label).

So does the DUP on the numbers game they are playing deserve a podium at the debates? In my opinion no.

However, I would love to see Peter Robinson up there as to actually debate real issues would show up how backward the DUP actually are. I've long been of the opinion that even many third and fourth placed candidates in the rest of the UK have a greater grasp on reality, people and working for all people than the DUP. So I dreamt last night of Peter Robinson having to face questions for the other UK party leaders having to justify the conscience clause and his parties anti-LGBT and anti-abortion agenda while claiming they wanted to be British.

Of course both Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance are now all saying that they too have as much right for representation with the inclusion of two parties who don't stand across all of the UK in these debates. And the DUP are saying that Naomi Long of the Alliance is represented by the Lib Dems, when she is not on my membership list and has said she is not a Liberal Democrat many times and the SDLP by Labour.

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 in dramatic move to allow gays to withhold services*

Following his announcement yesterday that registrars may be allowed to refuse to carry out same-sex marriage the SNP's Scottish Health Minister has announced that LGBT Scots will also be allowed to withhold their services from those that they conscientiously disagree with.

Many wedding dress designers and kilt outfitters will withhold their services from couples who get married without having a genuine LGBT friend on the invite list. As for brides who object to same-sex love they will be hard pressed to find a hairdresser for the big day. And the honeymoon had better be a staycation and those air stewards aren't letting you on the plane.

Musical and ballet companies will carry out a comprehensive survey of theatre goers as they enter the foyer. Any that show homophobic tendencies will be escorted off the premises. With more people using set top boxes to watch their TV, the aggressive homosexual activists will demand if some LGBT friendly programming is not stored in the recorded items or favourites any show featuring and LGBT artist will be automatically blocked with a "signal is scrambled" message appearing for the duration.

As for Colin and Justin, you cross them and you'll never have a nice interior in any of your homes EVER.

As for the gay fireman who will not help out out an objector's house fire? Or the gay police officer who refuses to take a statement from those who protest with their scripture verses should they be attacked?

Speaking on the issue Mr Neil said:

"I realise that my comments yesterday upset the friends of Dorothy, although John Mason was pleased. I hope that giving these powers to the aggressive homosexuals can appease for those registrars who will refuse to marry them."

* This is of course 100% satire.

So the Question is...

Should Scotland be an independent nation?

Yes or No

Yes the phrasing that the SNP wanted "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" was ruled by the electoral commission as possibly leading and not neutral. So the shorter more neutral question above is now the one that Nicola Sturgeon has agreed that she will recommend is adopted for the referendum.

Scottish Electoral Commissioner John McCormick commenting on the issue of the all important question said  he wanted voters to have confidence in the result of the referendum. Adding:

"We have rigorously tested the proposed question, speaking to a wide range of people across Scotland.

"Any referendum question must be, and be seen to be, neutral. People told us that they felt the words 'Do you agree' could lead voters towards voting 'yes'."

The Electoral Commission have also agreed that the spending limits for the Yes Scotland and Better Together campaigns also be increased from £750,000 to £1.5m. While the caps placed on political parties spending on this issue remains as it was.

So now that the people of Scotland know what will asked of them at some point in 2014, it is on with telling them what the consequences of those decisions means.

A no vote is not always vacuous

Nicola Sturgeon in this morning's Scotland on Sunday says that a no vote in next year's referendum on Scottish Independence is a vote for nothing. This is rather big seeing as the SNP have yet to secure an Independent Scotland's future within Europe and to answer some leading questions on military, support for the arts, culture and leisure (currently covered by the national lottery) and other issues that severance with the rest of the UK would bring about.

Of course she pulls the line of toeing the line to Westminster Austerity cuts, has she forgotten that Scotland two banks and largest Building Society received bail outs from that same Westminster? Has she ever wondered what state Scotland would have been in had they not had the support of Westminster at that time? Maybe she should look at Greece and what is required there. Part of the reason that some of these cuts are required is because of the state that the Scottish financial institutions got us into, not all, but a sizable chunk. 

Of course there are many who believe that a vote to stay within the UK is in the best interests of Scots, there is the economy of scales questions of trans-British industry, there is security in a economy that despite the recession is still recognised world wide as a leader, there is certainty in freedom of trade and movement within Europe (yes even though David is promising a referendum on that in 2016).

You see what Nicola is forgetting to factor in is that the people of Scotland voted for a devolved Scottish Parliament within the UK. They also voted for tax raising powers with flexibility within parameters from the UK, powers that have yet to be exercised by any party in power in Scotland. So with the ability to do certain things differently that have not been exercised and others that have being taken, just what is this nothing that Nicola is talking about. Student fees, care for the elderly, prescription charges etc are all different in Scotland than in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is hardly a nothing decision.

The other three main parties in Scotland all promised in the past to look at increasing powers for Holyrood, some may have taken a step back from that. However, the reason that this is on the back burner is because of the SNP insistence of taking this to a referendum and the decision to make it a single issue question of being part of the Union or not. The fact that parties like the Scottish Liberal Democrats do not want to muddy the waters does not mean that there will not be any further powers handed to Holyrood it is just that this is not something that the executive Government in Scotland are pursuing. You see it is Nicola and her SNP colleagues who are playing high stakes poker. They have gone all in on one hand, for them it is independence or bust. There is no get out, indeed there is no detail in what an independent Scotland will be, although Alex Salmond seems more that content to be dictator in chief, referee and player in his own referendum to anoint himself and his heirs and kings of Scotland thereafter.

Voting for the status quo is not always a vote for nothing, it can be a vote for stability as opposed to calamity. It can be a vote for prosperity as opposed to doom. Just because people do not want change does not mean that change is good or better. Until you can convince people that change is better for people they will vote for what they know.

The fact that the SNP are trying to scare people into saying a vote to stay in the UK is vacuous only goes to show that they have no real plan for the future. They have yet to convince me that Scotland is better apart from the UK, which is why I say we are Better Together, if I were to have a vote in the referendum I would be voting "No".

The biological cul-de-sac

hat tip (do bloggers still do that or is that Old School?) to Caron

According to my friend Caron Gordon Wilson the former leader of the SNP has been quoted in the Telegraph as telling a fringe meeting for the Coalition for Marriage at the party conference:

"Only a man and a woman can naturally have children and what I would call family marriage is the best way of bringing up children. It's a law of nature. Same-sex marriage is a biological cul-de-sac."

I agree with the first bit that only a man and a women can naturally have children. But after that he goes awry. Their conference is in Perth, the same location that a few years ago I was on the platform moving part of what now is Liberal Democrat policy on this issue.

Now I would officially class myself as bisexual though heavily on the gay side of the gay end of the Kinsey scale, some of you including Caron have actually met the one, unique women who truly stole my heart for five years.Therefore in honour of of such absurdity I have turned to verse:

Speeding along into a biological cul-de-sac

Two roads may diverge in a narrow wood
But they also in each life converge
Two drivers who meet on love's highway
That's nature for you I guess.

Those two can be male and female,
Or two of each don't you know
Sometimes that can lead naturally to children
But it ain't necessarily so.

Now as our lovebirds progress ever onward
They don't want to ever look back
They want to cruise on off into the future
Not trapped in a biological cul-de-sac.

But those that chose a same sex companion
Are not going to increase the population
Its not that they don't want marriage and family
Just that they're unable to multiply naturally.
So get off your high horse and assume they can change
Some just aren't a nought on the Kinsey range.
So asking a six to have sex with a partner
Who doesn't recognise as the same gender
Just ain't gonna happen however you plead.
But marriage equality is going to succeed
No matter how grumpy your arguments get
Like the facist comments when history you forget.

So let the two lovers speed along loves highway
Cause love isn't anyone's cul-de-sac.
Biology says four fifty species have them also same sex
Only one's homophobic a worrying fact.

Stephen Glenn 20 October 2012

So Joan McAlpine on the issue of trust with finances

Whatever your views on the abusive husband comments in Joan McAlpine's comments in yesterday's Daily Record lets us bear in mind she also said using the analogy of Westminster as the husband and Scotland as the wife:

But the husband complains she can't be trusted to manage her own money.

and

We could do much better with power over the economy, taxes and benefits. Scotland is as capable of running her own finances as England.

Let us not forget something.

In 1998 in the referendum for devolution there was a second question about varying tax raising powers, the people of Scotland said yes. So surely a sign of trust in dealing with their own finances.

The Calman Commission of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats you so despise wanted to trust Scotland further with tax raising powers.

And the Lib Dems even have a policy of fiscal autonomy for Scotland.

However, it was the SNP Government who failed to keep up payments to HRMC to enable the tax varying powers option to be maintained in 2010 and there is now a three year suspension on those powers.

So just how capable have the SNP been at running financial options for Scotland thus far?

SNP need precision in what Act of Union entails

So the SNP don't want the words United Kingdom to be used in the referendum question.

They argue that:

"We have been preparing for independence fo 75 years and we have our backs covered on all issues. It is about breaking up the political union, not the Union of the Crowns."

There is however a small issue to be considered; that of language.

The United Kingdom as a term came into being and usage in 1801, with the Acts of Union

The United Kingdom first became the name of the Country in 1800, when the Kingdom of Ireland joined the Kingdom of Great Britain.

"That it be the First Article of the Union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and that the royal stile and titles appertaining to the imperial crown of the said United Kingdom and its dependencies, and also the ensigns, armorial flags and banners thereof, shall be such as his Majesty, by his royal proclamation under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint." from the Union with Ireland Act 1800

The Kingdom of Great Britain itself only came into being in 1707 following the Act of Union, that is the political union. Before that from 1603 when James VI of Scotland inherited the crown of England through his grandmother being the sister of Henry VIII, it was a personal Union of  the Crowns of England and Scotland. They were still known as the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland. This is why both King James are known by both their regnal numbers; James I of England and VI of Scots and James II of England and VII of Scots.

"The Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next [1707] ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain. And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crossed of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such a manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land" from the Act of Union 1707

So as always the SNP a forgetting that there three crowns, or parts thereof that pledge fealty to their crowns, the term United Kingdom did come about as as aspect of the political union, not just the Parliament of (then) Great Britain. Those two are actually entwined in legislation. The Parliament of Scotland could in effect remove the protestant inheritance rights from the Princess Sophia Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover.

They actually are by wanting to tear up the Act of Union tearing up the United Kingdom. Her Majesty would therefore, if they were successful, become Queen Elizabeth II of England and Northern Ireland and I of Scots as she would return to being Queen of England and loyal parts of Ireland one one hand and Queen of Scots of the other.

What Alex Salmond said?

The best way to look at the emphasis of what Alex Salmond said as he launched his bid for a referendum on Scottish independence is through this Wordle.

In all that is 2312 words during which he said some of the keys ones this many times:

• Scotland 39
• referendum 32
• people 25
• Parliament 16
• government 15 (of which UK 5, Scottish 4)
• Scottish 13
• independence 12
• country 12
• question 10
• consultation 9
• UK 7
• Burns 6
• fair 5
• Electoral Commission
• Union 3 (One the 1707 Union, one European Union and one a new social union)
• legal challenge 1
• mandate 1

One of those words above I highlighted was question. In his speech he has outlined what he wants the question to be. It is a very simple non-ambiguous question:

"Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"

There can be no confusion as to the extent of that question. There would be no need for a follow up question is the question had been the convoluted, "Do you want the Scottish Parliament to open negotiations to lead towards an Independent Scotland" which at one point was muted.

If that is the question so be it. That question is clear. It is a straight yes/no. It is not confused by an option of devolution max, which though my preferred option is not one that is being offered at this time. Therefore I think the Secretary of State for Scotland should allow that question to be put to the people, the Electoral Commission will be running the practical side of the referendum. Let's get the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments around a table to discuss the niggling issues.

Game on.

SNP MP claims to be an Unionist

Watson: How can MacNeill claim to be a unionist when he is of Nationalist stock?

Holmes: It's 1603, my dear Watson. 

Angus MacNeill, the SNP MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, has just appeared on BBC Northern Ireland's Hearts and Minds [link to iPlayer from this point] claiming to be a Unionist!

The thing is that the tactic that he was using was which version of the Union was his opponent in debate, the UUP leader Tom Elliott, referring to. He kept going back to it as Elliott tried to mention that the United Kingdom was stronger under the European Union (throwing another union into the mix shows how poor a debater Elliott is). So my Scottish friends beware!


Having worked on the referendum for the yes to AV campaign one thing that the No team did was to try and confuse and complex the issues. Something that MacNeill was trying to do to a clearly unprepared and unaware Elliot and presenter Noel Thompson. Yes there are a number of Unions involved the Union of the Crowns (of England and Scotland) in 1603, the Act of Union 1707, which did away with the separate states and parliaments under the same crown, there are of course the Acts of Union of 1800 that united Ireland into that Kingdom. There is also the Statue of Rhuddlan from 1284 which effectively binds Wales to England.

MacNeill was using the confusion which anyone who hasn't spent time with the SNP could easily fall into distracting the debate away from the issues to Northern Ireland as a result of Scottish independence by trying to tie Northern Irish unionists up by their understanding of what the Union is. The thing is of course there are different views of what the union is for amongst unionists. There is the Northern Irish viewpoint. There is one largely shared by Conservatives and Labour, then there is a different one that Liberal Democrats hold. Other parties such as UKIP hold other opinions as well.

Was MacNeill trying a line of attack on a show in Belfast this evening that may eventually get used in Glasgow and Edinburgh? One that accentuates differences in what the union means to various people who support it to pull the union apart? Is claiming to be a 1603 unionist a cunning plot to assuage people that Scottish Nationalists are going to change things that much. Though look at their continuing vision to centralise with the police and fire services bill publication today.

I think we are well aware that the SNP are not going to play by the rules that currently exist, because each time they get knocked back it becomes one more trophy for them to parade about a repressive Westminster. Now it looks like they may also be trying to confuse people by just what union we're all talking about. They may have launched a divide and conquer approach tonight, to try and win through.

The lost opportunity because of that stupid cartoon

There was much made of the stupid cartoon that came out the Scottish Lib Dem press machine, but there is something to just what dreamworld Alex Salmond is living in over his quote about Scotland and Qatar. What he said was:

"As nations, we both have considerable expertise in oil and gas production, but as we look to the future and a low-carbon economy, we must increasingly develop new technologies.

"We discussed the remarkable similarities between our respective nations.

"Although both Scotland and Qatar have common strengths in the oil and gas sector, we are both seeking to develop our low carbon energy industries.

"This is where Qatar's focus on becoming a global knowledge hub links well with Scotland's considerable reputation as a world-leading education nation."

Scotland a world leading nation in education? Where is that league table. According to the Programme for International Student Assessment that is just average. Edinburgh may be the 36th Rank University in the World this year, with St Andrews 85, but out of 12 UK universities that is just 2. Glasgow does come in at 102, Aberdeen 151and Dundee 176, none of this is totally top of the world stuff, though not to be sniffed at.

So the real issue that the Scottish Liberal Democrats should have been attacking Salmond on was education from that cartoon. That and the commitment to green energy as Patrick Harvey did the other week. Unfortunately those ships have sailed.

Now maybe my former colleagues in Scotland are trying to pretend it is business as usual, maybe they are scared of the impact that the elections in may had. But there is something that has to be done it is choose where, when and how to attack. Sadly such insight was lacking on this occasion. With backs against the wall trying to avoid seeing Scotland swept away on a Nationalist tide you need to be smart in how to stem that tide not give it more power to the waves that come with it.

Patrick Harvie calls Alex Salmond on his green credentials

At the start of last weeks Scottish National Party conference last weekend First Minister Alex Salmond said:

"We [Scotland] are leading the global revolution in clean, green renewable energy, and we can and should be at the cutting-edge of pioneering carbon capture technology."

This week however, co-convenor of the Scottish Greens Patrick Harvie asked just how green can Alex and his SNP be? In his speech he said:

"Alex Salmond now has a very clear and simple choice - he must either fail on Scotland's much-vaunted climate change targets, or he must drop his unconditional support for the fossil fuel industries. 

"First, the new coal-fired power station at Hunterston must be blocked. Then he must rule out shale gas extraction, which his energy minister has refused to do. 

"Then, because CCS [carbon capture and storage] can never be applied to most uses of oil anyway, he must drop his support for dangerous deepwater oil drilling in Scottish waters."

The SNP are of constantly on about how they are not benefiting enough from the North Sea oil and gas industry. "Black gold" is the jewel in their crown for their being able to finance their dream of an independent Scotland. There has never been any secrecy about that not from the 70s the whole way through to the present day you will hear some SNP elected representative or candidate harp on about it being Scotland's Oil. Yet they continue simultaneously as Patrick has pointed out to try and balance appearing green with energy while looking to extract as much money as possible from fossil fuels.

So Patrick is right to ask what is it to be Alex? Oil, gas and shale or renewables?

SNP join Lib Dems in saying blood deferral unfair #bloodban

One thing that did emerge from the SNP's conference in Inverness was that they too joined with the Liberal Democrats, while welcoming the progress of the SaBTO report in September, recognising that the one year deferral period for men who have sex with men is wholly inadequate.

Glasgow Cathcart delegate Stewart McDonald said:

"We have a situation where two men in a perfectly safe, healthy sexual relationship are prevented from doing what the Blood Transfusion Service calls 'something amazing': they will be prevented from helping to save lives.

"Most gay men do not have, and never will have HIV. Their blood is screened in the exact same way as everyone else's, and if safe should be donated in the same way as everyone else's. The policy we have just now, I would say, is unfit for purpose. And this is 21st Century Scotland. We can do better than this."

Thankfully unlike here in Northern Ireland the Scottish Health Minister has taken the SaBTO recommended deferral period on board for now. Though I'm not sure 100% what the motion before the delegates at SNP conference called for. Therefore I was disappointed to hear that a Scottish Government spokesman say (emphasis mine):

"While we understand the point, the UK Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissue and Organs has looked in depth at all the latest scientific evidence in this area, including improvements to blood screening and changes to donation criteria overseas, and recommended these changes on the basis of that evidence. 

"On that basis, the Scottish Government have accepted this expert advice in relation to blood donations in Scotland. 

"These changes will bring the criteria for men who have sex with men into line with other groups who are deferred from blood donation for 12 months due to sexual behaviours, while ensuring every possible step is taken to maintain the safety of our blood supply."

They clearly have not understood the point if they are still saying that the 12 month referral is based on behaviour. The fact is as was argued so well by Stewart at the SNP conference and so many at Lib Dem conference that there are MSM who are in stable relationships, have always practiced safe sex and regularly get their blood checked for STIs and return constant negative results. They are also most likely have taken, or at least been offered, the Hepatitis B and C shots to protect against the longer incubation STIs that SaBTO are most concerned about affecting the blood supply.

There are MSM whose behaviour out there in the world of relationships is exemplary and just what the Blood Transfusion service would like to have as an assurance to the blood supply, yet they are still prevented by giving blood if they are in a full, caring and sexual relationship with a long term partner. All the while a heterosexual man who sleeps around, doesn't always practice safe sex and does not know his sexual history nor taken Hep B and C shots is freely able to give blood.

MP's long-held opinion shockingly shocks the Catholic Church at fringe event #equalmarriage

There has been uproar from the Catholic Church in Scotland about comments made by Pete Wishart MP
at a fringe event at SNP conference yesterday. Mr Wishart said:

"What I believe will happen is that our government, over the course of the next few years, after this consultation, will bring forward legislation which will ensure we will have equal marriage in this country. I'm proud of that, I'm proud that this is the party that will be leading us forward, and I look forward to that new Scotland that we're trying to build."

Seeing as the Scotsman say it was hosted by Alyn Smith MEP (along with the Scottish Youth Parliament and LGBT Youth Scotland, I notice) I did what any tweeting fiend would do and check his Tweeter feed. Look what I found:

Now there you have it, there was a discussion. It was a fringe event looking at one of the political topics of the day, in this case equal marriage. Apparently it went around the houses.

Now what the Catholic Church of Scotland may not have got is that fringe meetings at party conferences are meetings where issues are discussed. No conclusions are necessarily drawn, no policy is formed, but members will be made to think and will make the political representatives present think. What is said in a fringe meeting by a speaker is not Ex Cathedra. Indeed I have found out from people who were there that the debate from the floor did cover both sides of the debate, though the overall majority were in support of the premise of equal marriage being the outcome from the consultation.


But look again at the start of Wishart's comments it is "what I believe will happen", it is not what will happen, but what he believes will happen. Now Pete Wishart is one of those MPs within the SNP who for a long time has been pro equal marriage. It is hardly surprising that he should want to see a progressive way forward being the outcome.

The shouting and gnashing of teeth is over the church fearing that they will be forced to do anything. Look at John Mason's amendment which actually wasn't an amendment as there was no obligation for any faith group to carry out same-sex marriage anyway, something backed up by John Swinney.

"There will be no compulsion here, there will be no obligation. The protection is there so that no individual within the religious community will be obliged to do this.

"I think we're right to take this course of action, we're right to make it possible for religious practitioners to conduct same-sex marriages if they wish to do so. But clearly there must be no compulsion involved in any of that."

What most people want is the possibility of religious groups coming to their own conclusions within their own governance structure. Where there are same sex couples or gay individual within that faith grouping, they may ask their leaders to look at the issue, if that is they want to get married within that faith. The laws of the churches are of course up for them and cannot be dictated to, but there are faith groups that want an enabling to carry out same-sex as well as mixed sex marriage and have already said they wish to do so.

Salmond may not have gone mental but still in denial

As I blogged late on Wednesday there was a little dispute between First Minister Alex Salmond and Dunfermline and West Fife MP Labour's Thomas Docherty. Well his special advisor Douglas Chapman, leader of Fife Council and candidate from the 2006 by election candidate for Docherty's seat has stepped in to deny that the First Minister went mental.

In fact he went so far as to say that Mr Docherty had prepared a fantasy press release. This is good from the man who's team on polling day in Dunfermline and West Fife pulled together a fantasy stake board message that suggested that there was going to be a shock SNP win on the day. His full statement that appears in the Dunfermline Press is:

"Any suggestion that Mr Salmond lost his temper is absolutely incorrect.



"I was in the room along with guests and senior council officers and nothing untoward happened, other than Mr Docherty's approach was totally inappropriate given that the focus of the visit was making children feel really proud of their new school.


"In fact, most people in the room were unaware of any supposed incident and Mr Docherty and his press office are guilty of pure fiction. If anything, it was Mr Docherty's inappropriate approach to Mr Salmond that was aggressive and the First Minister's response was a model of restraint.


"Mr Docherty's childish behaviour was questionable in raising a political issue at the opening of a new school, which was a day for the proud pupils, parents and teachers.


" Mr Docherty then left - presumably to prepare his fantasy press release - and didn't even have the good grace to stay to share the day with the children.


"These actions will be seen by many of his constituents as being not only juvenile and inappropriate but wholly crass and opportunistic.

Mr Docherty's response was:

"If Douglas Chapman's happy putting his name to this statement for Mr Salmond that's fair enough but he was in the room and he knows what really happened."

What I find strange about the whole thing is that  both Alex Salmond's statement on the day and Douglas Chapman's statement now are about image management of the leader and not of the party. There has still been no SNP leadership about the question of Mr Walker's comments yet they are scurrying to build the image of Alex Salmond. From the stories I have heard on doorsteps of Linlithgow while campaigning there I can fully believe that Alex Salmond could lose his temper when he believes he is in private.

Salmond! Calm down and go and wait outside the headmaster's office

 "You don't bring politics into a school, that's just daft."

Was the comment made by a politician at the end of a visit to a school. Yeah, you heard that right some daft politician tried to stop an opponent asking him a question while he was on a school visit. The daft eejit to say something that daft was none other than the first minister of Scotland Alex Salmond.

Here are the facts, well at least both STV and the Dunfermline Press are having to report what happened as the incident happened away from teachers and pupils and possibly also the press.Thomas Docherty the Labour MP who defeated Willie Rennie in 2010 apparently asked the First Minister to condemn the Nazi comments of the MSP for the area Bill Walker (who was also present) about some of the LGBT groups challenging his support of the John Mason amendment to the Equal Marriage consultation. This is the sort of action that any MP or MSP could expect to recieve on an regular basis.

Apparently the First Minster apparently got angry and asked Docherty, 'How long have you been an MP son?' before one of his minders stepped in.

The full quote from Mr Salmond to the press afterwards was:

"I think he's only been an MP for a year or so and he'll learn as time goes on that there's a time and a place for everything and you don't bring politics into a school, that's just daft.



"However, it certainly didn't mar the day. I think it's a reflection of his inexperience."

Ironically the man he was defending Bill Walker has been an MSP for only 3 months as opposed to 15 of Mr Docherty. Mr Salmond could have said the comment from Mr Walker, which the Dunfermline MSP has since retracted, was a reflection of HIS inexperience. Yet the First Minister has yet to pass any comment after this issue has been going on for a week.

Maybe Mr Salmond needs reminding that his party have currently only promised to consult on the issue as in their manifesto. Surely he could have reminded Mr Walker of that, while reprimanding him for his comments. However, there may a million reasons why the First Minister isn't prepared to take a public stance on the subject of equal marriage, or maybe any LGBT issue, if he is in the pay of Brian Souter on such issues he is not fit to serve as First Minister of a diverse and progressive Scotland, either as part of the UK or as an independent state.

Of course this isn't the only time that the brasqueness, duplicity and stupidity of Alex Salmond has caused tensions this week.

Update Friday 19 August Today the First Minister has denied "going mental" as Mr Docherty put it, however there is still no cendemnation.

What the Party manifestos said on Same Sex Marriage

Before we get into too big a brouhaha about the consultation on equal marriage by the Scottish Parliament let's take a look at what the different parties actually said in their manifestos.

The big two were quite similar both only saying they would start a consultation.

The SNP page 17 under the header A more equal Scotland

"We recognise the range of views on the questions of same-sex marriage and registration of civil partnership. We will therefore begin a process of consultation and discussion on these issues."

Labour page 67 under the heading Championing equality, celebrating diversity

"Scottish Labour wants to end the unjust situation that has seen gay men, who were previously prosecuted for consensual acts, continue to suffer the prejudice caused by these convictions - long after the offences themselves have been decriminalised. We will investigate the best way to implement the 'Alli Amendment' in Scotland, to give religious organisations that want to, the freedom to hold civil partnerships in their buildings for the first time. We also believe that the time is now right to consult on options to provide genuine equality for same-sex couples and their families, by addressing the different status of civil partnership and marriage. We are clear – Scotland shouldn’t be left behind on these issues."

Two of the others also had policies that were very similar, both saying they would actually take action.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats page 82 under the heading Freedom and Liberty Action Plan based on the policy motion which I reported on here.

"Extend legal marriage to gay couples and civil partnerships to heterosexual couples."

Scottish Green Party page 19 under the heading Diversity, tolerance and creativity

"We'll introduce legislation for equal partnership – opening marriage and civil partnership up to mixed-sex and same sex couples, and allowing religious celebrants to conduct civil partnership. We'll begin a dialogue with the UK Government about the need for cross-border recognition of relationships on the basis of equality."

In fact looking at what Patrick Harvie of the Green's said back in January this year, the Greens are similarly to the Liberal Democrats position of not forcing churches to do anything. I particularly like his phrasing in the last line.

"The idea that same sex couples are second class citizens is deeply offensive and on the wane, but it still needs to be challenged. The Equal Marriage campaign is an attempt to remove one of the last elements of discrimination in law, and deserves our support. The antiquated notion that same sex couples are in some way morally inferior needs to be put to rest once and for all.

"The progress made toward equality over recent decades has been dramatic, but prejudice and discrimination are still very real in our society. It's important that the law should recognise that love is love, that family is family, and that a "separate but equal" system of family law is still giving cover for prejudice.

"It would be relatively simple for Scotland to open civil marriage up to same sex couples and civil partnership to mixed sex couples, so that people can make their own choice on their own terms. The churches would also be free to reach their own view, instead of being banned by law from recognising all relationships equally."

Then there was the Conservatives 

"



"

Yeah a distinct lack of anything there.

So you have two parties that were committed to bringing in equal marriage, neither of which were going to force churches to carry it out, but allow them to be "free to reach their own view, instead of being banned by law from recognising all relationships equally". Plus two parties who consultation would have lead them to realise there are gay Christians who want the option, religious groups that want the option and those that don't want to be forced in to anything.

All three can be accommodated in the one motion and it won't affect the sanctity of marriage any more that the current divorce rate amongst heterosexual marriages, that is something that both the Greens and Lib Dems already have come to a consensus on..

How Green is Your Salmond?

While I'm more that glad to hear Alex Salmond say that Scotland should be fully supplied by renewable energy by 2025. But it flies in the face of his demands just last month to benefit from the £242bn of tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 30 years, by devolving that tax raising power.

You see it is all well and good wanting to be 100% renewable in fifteen years Mr Salmond, but you are looking at benefiting from a carbon-burning economy for twice that length of time. The problem is of course that since the 1970s part of the SNP cry for Independence is that it is Scotland's oil. The revenue from that oil will fund their independent Scotland. Therefore the SNP are not the green party they are making out to be.

The Liberal Democrats had set target of 2050 for 100% renewables in our last Scottish election manifesto, a figure that we also pledged across the UK in our 2010 manifesto. It was a target we had set with intermediary steps along the way as part of a detailed roadmap to getting there. The pledge from Salmond today cuts 62.5% further off what other parties have said is even an ambitious target, ironically even the Greens only talk about a low-carbon Scotland on their website and have no aim for 100% renewables.

I have to ask myself has Salmond enquired what figures the other parties have and then decided to halve the most ambitious (although through bad maths that should have been 2030)? He has also increase the 2020 target from 50% to 80%. I've yet to see a breakdown of his objectives, conversion and payment plan to achieve this. Figure indicate that renewable energy in Scotland contributed 22% of the total in 2008 (up from 20.2% the year before) with an interim target of 31% for next year.

These are aggressive targets but I'm wondering are they attainable of are these just a promise ready for next May, like the many promises that the SNP have already failed to keep from May 2007?

Reason Why the Fifth of May is Wrong Date for Referendum

It is just over 24 hours from when the announcement for a date of a referendum on AV for Westminster was decided to be up against next May's Scottish Election but already we can see how the SNP are going to use it. The SNP are talking about the lack of respect to the Scottish people, Fiona Hyslop going further cutting to the chase when she said:

"It's important that we see action and not just warm words on respect.

"And in terms of what this is saying in terms of how the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and the Scottish people are being treated, I think this is an example of the British Government just not working for Scotland.

"I think this announcement shows a bit of coalition chaos, where the parties in London seem quite prepared to have a referendum on a voting system that they don't really support but not have a referendum on independence to decide the powers that the Scottish people could have."

That last part is the bit that is going to be concentrated on not respect as that will be shoved out the window by the SNP at the earliest convenient opportunity. No there will be the name calling over why one referendum is good and proper and another is not. There will be no respect for the fact that the Lib Dem MSPs were elected to Holyrood Parliament in 2007 on the promise that they wouldn't hold a referendum on independence in the next four years.

That was a stance I disagreed with on the stand alone principle of it from my stance as a democrat. It has been exasperated now by our own leader the Deputy Prime Minister making two announcements of Westminster to piggy back the next two Scottish elections. In 2015 we already have the concurrent elections of a 5-year fixed term Westminster and the 4-year fixed term Scottish Parliaments, now there are plans to ride over next years Scottish elections too.

For a party that believes in devolution we are being perceived of going a strange way about it, strangling the distinct Scottish message of all parties our own included for the elections for the next eight years of Scottish life with two UK-wide debates simultaneously.