Conservative and Unionist Party hoisting the union on a Trans Petard

The full name of the party that is in Government in Westminster is the Conservative and Unionist Party. However, today that took a shocking step that may well rock or even split up that union.

It is being announced that the Scottish Secretary will this evening inform the Scottish First Minister that tomorrow he will take the legal steps to invoke a Section 35 which allows Westminster to overturn a piece of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. This is something that has never been done in the 25 years of the Socttish Parliament. 

The piece of legislation that it is seeking to overturn is the Gender Recognition Bill that was passed with an overwhelming vote of 67% of MSPs voting in favour. The breakdown by party was

• All 4 Lib Dem MSPs in favour (100%)
• All 7 Green MSPs in favour (100%)
• 21 out of 22 Labour MSPs in favour (95%)
• 54 out of 64 SNP MSPs in favour (84%)
• 2 out of 31 Conservative MSPs in favour (6%)

So as you can see every party in Scotland bar one was overwhelmingly in favour. The fact that the Westminster Conservative Government is now going to block this going to Royal Assent is a political football being played in an increasingly right wing leaning Conservative party. The language that the party has been using on assylum seekers, Trans peoples, workers rights to strike and protest are all now looking more and more authoritarian. 

However, by invoking section 35 for the first time in history this is also piling up gunpowder under the very Union itself in a way which unlike Guy Fawkes may explode the union. It is such a minor piece of legislation in the grand scheme of things, but it opens a flood gate and leads to a slippery slope. At a time when those who want another independence referendum are already heated, the act of stopping a Scottish Act gaining Royal Assent just might push many who were agnostic to Scotland's independence into the independence camp.

The worse thing is that the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Bill has no actual impact on UK-wide equality legislation, this was pointed out in the wording of the Bill itself. It is only impacting the right to change your gender on your birth certificate and only impacts those who wish to do so not anyone else. We in the UK do not currently* need to carry our birth certificates around with us. 

The Secretary of State of Scotland also calls for there to be more consideration of this. However, there was already 6 years of public consultion into this bill it was not rushed, what is rushed in the UK Government's response.

Yet this is the petard upon which the Westminster Government is prepared to hoist the Union.

It is laughable that the West Lothian Question which caused Tam Dalyell great ethical quandry over Scottish devolution will pale into comparison to what today has become the Westminster Question. What is a Secretary of State for Scotland opposes the will of a supermajority of the devolved Scottish Parliament.

By saying currently the more right wing, authoritarian and dare I say facist the Conservative Party are becoming me may well start to single out individuals and groups of individuals may not be far off.

 

Nicola Sturgeon's Second Referendum

I may only have been in from work less than half an hour, but I already know that what I say is going to upset some of my good friends within the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Nicola Sturgeon is right to call for a second Scottish Referendum after the deal is known and before the UK pulls out. What follows is the reasons why?

Firstly the dynamic of what it means to be part of the UK has changed. Many of those, including myself, while part of the last No campaign said that one of the uncertainties for Scottish Independence was their future having to renegotiate with Europe. That is no longer part of the issue because Theresa May is taking the UK out of Europe while Scotland voted to remain.

That other lady of politics Theresa May today is talking about the tunnel vision of Nicola Sturgeon. But since the Brexit vote and her taking control has failed to acknowledge that the people of Scotland and indeed Northern Ireland whose interaction with Europe is different from a lot of England took a different view from the Brexit result.

Scotland is pro-Europe, but Theresa May is taking us away from Europe, yet somehow she talks of tunnel vision while all her talk of taking the UK out of every aspect of Europe and heading for a hard Brexit is just that.

I myself did say after the last Scottish referendum that Nicola Sturgeon should have stuck to her pledge that this was a once in a generation opportunity. I have however changed my mind, the seismic plates have shifted in UK politics. While I would have vote No last time, I personally would be voting yes next time (if the rumours of what Theresa May is heading for turn out to be true).

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.

Today could have been the day I became married

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that today could have been the day that I got married.

While I was over in Scotland there was a serious relationship with another man the talk did get towards the stage of should we look towards a civil partnership. In the end our lives took over and we ended up not having enough time for each other and drifting apart, on this occasion it actually wasn't me in an election year that led to the lack of time.

So it is possible that in some alternative universe he and I could today be converting our Scottish civil partnership into a marriage. It would seem appropriate for someone who campaigned to get equal marriage as a policy for the Scottish Liberal Democrats including the conversion of CPs to do so on the first day. As it is I am sitting here in Northern Ireland single and knowing that my friends here who are in civil partnerships will not be able to convert them. Worse I know that all those recently converted CPs into marriages, and those in England and Wales already and those from Scotland from 15 days time who were never in a CP but married will find themselves in a civil partnership if they come over here.

The fight for equal marriage in the UK is not yet complete.

First the recognition of same sex marriage is still not being recognised by the politicians that represent about half the electorate in Northern Ireland. It is almost as if protestant, unionist and loyalist LGBT people do not exist. Tell that to Julie-Anne Corr.

But then we do have to expand it so that humanists can have a tailor made wedding ceremony to fit them if they desire, rather than the bland heavily regulated and scripted prescribed civil ceremony that town halls offer.

We need to deal with the issues facing Transgender people, ending the spousal veto, restoring lost years from the forced dissolution of marriages and civil partnerships before transitioning was allowed to take place.

There is also the fact that civil partnerships remain and make equality skewed. If we are to keep them we need to open them up to mixed sex couples who do not want to have a marriage for whatever reason, but have the protections and rights under laws that other long term committed relationships have both in live and death.

Today's news in Scotland is welcome and I look forward to the first marriages without conversion on Hogmaney. But there is still work to do and some in this great country of ours to make all things equal.

First impressions of post referendum Scotland

Yesterday was the first time I stepped foot in Scotland after the referendum. It is a fortnight on from what Alex Salmond hailed the biggest decision Scotland has to make in 300 years so what do I think.

I come from Northern Ireland, so I am used to opposing sides marking their territories. Green, white and orange kerbstones in some parts red, white and blue ones elsewhere. But if you were in doubt you'd look up to the lampposts or the top of towerblocks and there you would see flags of the matching hue to confirm where you were. In days gone by from me this used to indicate whether I was Stephen or Patrick and whether my father came from Londonderry or Derry and more precisely The Fountain or just vaguely the Cityside.

There have always been Saltires flying across Scotland but this time as I traveled by bus from Cairnryan to Ayr and on my train to Glasgow as I wandered a little last night after grabbing a bit to eat in the City Centre back out to my accommodation for this week I noticed something else. Wherever I saw a Saltire there seemed to inevitably be a Yes poster or sticker in the windows as well.

Now I know that not all of those across the whole nation who fly the Saltire are anti British as those who fly the Tricolour in Northern Ireland are. And I expect, indeed know, that there are some who have a flag pole outside their house, hotel or whatever that fly the Saltire that do so for tourism reason and not as a mark of their voting intentions. But I largely was traveling through towns and villages. Or that is where I was close enough to see the flags and the additions. Or just the stickers like the one next to the plague on the Kingston Bridge commemorating the opening of it by Queen Elizabeth , the Queen Mother.

Just like my Facebook and Twitter feeds which has members of the 45% who voted Yes there are signs of people marking their territory. The one thing I did spot is that it is by no means 45% of all the accommodation that I wonders past that still is doing so. But there was enough of it to catch my attention. Maybe by online presence is more politically active that the general populace, or maybe the general populace is more ready to move on with the decision than what the media and the vocal parts of the 45 are telling us.

As I said these are just first impressions from someone who grew up in a divided community, where symbols have a greater importance to marking your identity that almost anywhere else I have visited or lived. Also as I wasn't present here during it and last lived in Scotland over a year ago I cannot judge on the intervening period it is just a brush on the surface from someone who has spent a decade living here.

In the cold light of a post referendum day

When it comes to matters of self determination I am what I would call an economic realist. You may well ask what do I mean by that? Well let me explain.

My degree is in economics so I know to look at the bigger picture for the nation, how that affects individuals and how the ability of a nation to look after its individual is best served. Therefore it does not make be either a nationalist nor a unionist when such matters are discussed.

Therefore in the 80s, 90s and early in the 2000s if there had of been a border poll in Northern Ireland I would likely have voted for a united Ireland. Especially during the 80s and 90s Northern Ireland seemed to be overlooked by Westminster and the economies of scale that being one quarter of a booming Ireland as opposed to one fiftieth or so of the United Kingdom meant that we probably would have had a better deal.

The situation with the Scottish Referendum is that I as an internationalist who studied European Economics for two years as a part of my degree did not only believe that the question were not being answered, but that the Yes side didn't fully understand the questions. Yes there was currency, there was Scotland's place in Europe, there was financial institutions that cross borders. I know how these things work in Ireland, but they are compartmentalised. There were too many grey areas and to be honest there wasn't honesty on the part of Alex Salmond a fellow economist in how to deal with many, many such questions.

However, to be called a fool who has been taken in is something I find insulting. Just because I did not come to the same conclusion as someone else does not make me a fool, that would lead to a very insulting image of our political system where there are so many parties not any of which I agree with 100% of the time. I am a member of the party that most closely reflects what I believe. As decisions within that party are mostly decided by as democratic vote I will be able to back those to the hilt, where some decisions are made that ignores the will of conference then I will continue to speak up and speak out. Indeed up until March of this year I was still on the register to vote in Scotland (due to 6 month residency requirement to transfer back unto the Northern Ireland register of electors)

The constant complaints about a fixed ballot when I have seen tweets from Yes groups, and blog posts from them and people who were there either as count agents of staff is beyond disrespectful to fellow Scots (and yes as I have spent more than 10 years there in the white paper I'd qualify for a passport). I have been to many, many counts across Scotland, I know that the election staff both in polling stations and at the count are second to none. That those of us who on a regular basis spend a long day getting out the vote following by long hours at the count are always impressed by how they handle themselves and we know that if there is something that we think has not been done right it will be investigated when we raise that.

The fact that on my 45th birthday many people started to put the 45 image on their profile pics is a cause for concern. That 45 is diverse, that 45 comes from all the main political parties and on many issues that 45 disagree. They are not homogenous. The same applies to the other 55% we are not all the same.

I'm proud that many people wanted to get involved in politics many for the first time, I know that many of them have joined one of the parties of the Yes side, that is loud and clear as they are all shouting about it. I also know that Scottish people have over the past two years joined the parties on the side of No as well. Is it good that they want to carry on the political conversation it is just that they need to know that the conversation in politics often moves on. Yes there are times that all of us in politics miss out on getting something and have to regroup,but they we have to make the best of what we can do.

That is where we are now. I've seen some say that the No side of the debate were triumphant. If I were an alien looking in I would be hard pressed to see that. Most of my friends who had No banners on their pages had taken them down within  24 hours of the result, the same is not true of my friends from Yes and yes they are still friends.

We need political leaders on both sides to speak sanely and calmly, change always takes time. It cannot be achieved in a weekend, a week, or even a month it will take time to make a change and make it correctly. There was a timetable laid out for presenting the additional powers, just as the SNP has laid out a timetable for delivering the referendum.

We know that the SNP took 7 years from first entering Government to bring about the referendum they had promised all their political lives, so a few extra months and a shorter timescale to make further changes isn't too great a time to wait, but everyone needs to take ownership of the process, get behind it and now that not all your dreams will come true, but you can make it the best package that you can.

Some fact and figures from #IndyRef

Ok we have all seen the conspiracy theories but here are some of the facts that would have to have been different if the Yes side really had to overcome the silent majority to win. I started to crunch these numbers when someone actually said the result wasn't a landslide to which someone else used the Politico definition:

 a landslide election win is one in which the winning candidate beats his opponent by at least 10 percentage points.

But I decided to look at it this way. What would have been required out of the available votes remaining to turn the election around. As we know on Thursday the electorate was engaged and apathy wasn't was a winner. We have to assume that everyone's vote was counted correctly, yes there may have been a few that somehow missed all the observers and the counters attention, but with the vote split 11 to 9 this would statistically have been an error that was have affected both sides equally.

So where there enough votes left that Yes could have won?

Yes finished some 383, 979 votes behind no on a 84.59% turn out.

Yes secured 1,617,949 votes which at 37.77% of the total registered voters would have won most elections in recent times. If it were not for the 2,001,928 votes that No secured which was 46.74% of all those registered  to vote. That is astounding that they came so close to having 50% of all those who could have voted, but they didn't so more could have been swayed and persuaded to vote.

So lets look at those that didn't vote, there were only 663,515 of these in the whole of the 4,283,392 registered from the age of 16 upwards who could vote. Which in itself was 97% of those eligible to vote.

Therefore we can see there were still enough votes available that could have seen a different result.

But how well would Yes have had to do with that available number of voters?

To secure to 383,980 additional votes that Yes would have needed to win by a single vote would have required 57.87% of those that didn't vote to ALL vote yes. Which would have taken turnout up to a even more incredible 93.47%.

Even if all of those who didn't vote could express an opinion 78.93% of them or 523,748 of them would have had to vote yes. and that would have give Yes a majority of 2 votes as there was actually an even number of registered voters.

If we were to assume that the % of rejected ballots (0.0947%) in the remainder of the voters that percentage there would be 629 less votes available. They would then need only 523,433 of the remainder, however that is 78.96% of those that would be available. So even if there had been 100% turn out yes would have needed 4 out of every 5 votes from those that did not vote to win when they were achieving 9 out of 20 from those that actually did.

So therefore can we put the conspiracy theories aside. There was a 10 percentage point divide at the end. Some Yes campaigners are saying it felt closer than that. Opinion polls said it felt closer than that. But when you consider that some vocal Yes supporters were calling No voters cowards, traitors or whatever and calling for some of them to go home, saying those born elsewhere had no right to vote and some were threatening people that they'd have to move, face a day of reckoning etc is it not possible that some people who would vote no were scared to tell anyone that in public and would say they were voting yes.

As the last weeks polls seemed to suggest that it was withing 4% even if the margin of error of 3% on a individual poll would only take that to 7%. But that there were a large number of polls in that last week to a fortnight that showed it was that close there would appear to have been maybe a 1% margin in those polled, but certainly not all of them were possibly giving their true intentions and that could well have applied to Yes canvassers especially if those people voting no felt that the threats might come to something should there be independence.

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.

Ineos go all in, Unite fold

The best analogy of the deal that was reached over the Grangemouth plants future this morning comes from the world of poker.

Ineos possibly sick of the infighting and continuous threat of strikes from the Unite Union yesterday announced they were shutting down the petrochemical part of the plant and considering the future of refinery. It was the equivalent of putting all your chips unto the table and being prepared to lose everything.

Unite had rejected the 'last chance survival' plan offered by Ineos, but this morning with 800 jobs apparently already gone and 570 others threatened they capitulated. Accepted all the conditions laid down by that plan as they say "warts and all". Equivalent to throwing all your cards away in poker.

This afternoon we also saw the new Secretary of State for Scotland Alistair Carmichael and Scottish Finance Minister John Swinney together in Grangemouth to talk with Ineos this afternoon.

Addressing the press after that meeting Mr Carmichael said:

"We are in a much better place today in relation to the future of the plant than we were yesterday.

"There remains, of course, a great deal to be done."

Mr Swinney added:

"This plant has got a great future, everybody accepts that Grangemouth has got a great future.

"What we need to do is resolve these outstanding issues, get the investment plan implemented and take forward and improve the prospects for the people that that work in this plant."

The past 24 hours has certainly proved to be a long time in the  life of 1,370 highly skilled jobs in Grangemouth and I hope that in the future both sides will sit down and discuss differences in a constructive and respectful manner long, coming to a conclusion long before it escalates to such potentially damaging circumstances.

The wider impact of the loss of Grangemouth peterochemical jobs

Around 800 people across West Lothian and Falkirk are to lose their jobs with the announcement today that Ineos are to shut down the Grangemouth petrochemical plant with immediate effect. The fate of the remaining 570 jobs linked to the refinery on the same site are yet to be determined.

It is one of the biggest loss of jobs in the area following on the the 3,100 lost with the shutting of the Motorola plant at Bathgate in 2001, the same number lost their jobs at NEC, Livingston the same year. More recently 500 lost their jobs with the shutting down of the Bausch and Lomb plant at Livingston.

But the danger of losing jobs in the petrochemical plant is nothing new. Indeed back in May 1992 my some time sparring partner the MP for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned then recent job losses at the plant in his maiden speech:

"The town of Grangemouth is at the centre of Falkirk, East and has been noted for some time as a petrochemical town, boasting substantial production facilities for BP Oil, BP Chemicals, ICI, General-Electric Plastics, and Rhom and Haas (Scotland). My constituents are pleased at the commitment to investment by those companies, notably the £600 million investment by BP Chemicals in an ethylene cracker plant, the process technology labs of ICI and the Rhom and Haas plant upgrade. However, all is not what it once was. Harry Ewing noted the vast expansion of Grangemouth in 1971, but in 1971, when speaking about new employment, he said that the position was rapidly changing. I say without criticism of local management in Grangemouth that, in 1991–92, more than 1,000 job losses were announced in the town. Some 300 jobs have gone at the BP refinery, 250 have gone at ICI and 200 more redundancies are being sought. In addition, there were major job losses in the timber yards, which were made much of in 1971 by my predecessor."

It is sad day for the 800 who have lost their jobs today. However, both sides have been acting like stubborn mules in recent days, if not years. The owners seem to be doing all they can to get what they view as a white elephant off their books, while at the same time the workers are not prepared to take any chance in pay and conditions, fearing their own job without considering that all the jobs in the sector could be gone.

When Ineos came with what they called a survival plan, you would have thought that alarm bells would have been ringing with the workers. The fact that the plant has survived so long without a major change in conditions when others the area have had to accept such adjustments, knowing that if they didn't their job could disappear.

But the Grangemouth plants is almost a fifedom of Unite. The same union that has been at the centre of the Fallkirk Labour Party's election shenanigans. The Union appears to have been promising the workers take a stand and we'll see that everything will be alright, only to have found that Ineos were also not going to budge. it appears that the 570 jobs in the refinery are now also in danger. But with that there is also other jobs in the oil industry and possibly the ability of Scotland to actually process the oil that lies off its shore.

The last element is going to be of extremely great concern to Alex Salmond because part of the way he was going to fund an independent Scotland was through the production and processing off 'Scottish' oil within Scotland. If the Grangemouth plant were to totally close and be mothballed or decommissioned it could take years if at all to be able to get the processing of oil within Scotland up to the speed that would make it capable of supporting Scotland's economy to the extent that Salmond wants it to. If the oil is going to have to be processes and refined elsewhere that would be extra costs and less value added within Scotland causing a rather big hole in his economic plan.

Murdo Fraser's stigmatising questions of equal marriage

Murdo Fraser

Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser has laid down four questions that make for rather worrying reading when taken as a whole in relation to the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill that is progressing through Holyrood.

The first:

Question S4W-17753: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will amend the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill to state that the current definition of marriage is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Now I believe in freedom of speech. So I would want to protect people right to say that they disagree with the definition of marriage. Nobody should be forced to change the way they practice marriage, but the state can lead the way and at the same time enable faith groups to follow if they choose. In fact that was the reason that when it came to drafting Scottish Liberal Democrat policy on this that we let faith groups decide for themselves if they wanted to bring in same-sex marriage within their group.

However, when you lift the right of someone to say they disagree to the level of a belief there is a problem. Opposition to same-sex couples getting married in and of itself is not a complete belief structure. Indeed there are many people within most of the faith groups who disagree on this point to varying degrees. Some will oppose it absolutely, some oppose it within any faith group, some only within their faith group but are happy for others that want to to go ahead and others that are open to it however it happens. There is no straight forward belief in how people are opposed to same-sex couples getting married. It is as diverse a belief system as the faith groups themselves. 

Which leads to the second question:

Question S4W-17754: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will seek to amend the Equality Act 2010 to (a) include in the protected characteristic of religion or belief, support for the current definition of marriage and (b) ensure that people opposed to same-sex marriage should not experience any detriment because of their views.

Here as I said above even those within faith groups have differing views on the current definition of marriage. What the current Bill is seeking to do is to respect whatever decision each faith group comes to via its own governance and procedures. In Scotland we have less state control of religion than in England and Wales. 

This amendment would seek to ensure that people opposed to same-sex marriage should not experience any detriment because of their views. But what if them avoiding detriment comes to their views comes at the detriment of those in a same-sex marriage. You cannot impose a cover all as this amendment does. Imagine an extreme example:

"I'm sorry my Lord, but I disagree with same-sex marriage and when I found out the couple next door were 'gay married' I collapsed our connecting wall unto them stoning them to death as stated in Leviticus 20:13 I should do with man who lies with another man. But under the amendment to the Equality Act 2010 I should not suffer any detriment for acting upon my views."

Extreme maybe, but if that amendment were to be added to the equality act as it is written is there really any response that a court could make to such a defence?

Then unto question three:

Question S4W-17756: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government, if same-sex marriage was introduced, what its position is on whether it would be appropriate for public sector employers to take into account the views on this of (a) applicants for posts and (b) staff when considering their suitability for employment.

Now public sector employees cover a wide gamut of positions.

First there is the obvious front line position of registrars who would have to carry out same-sex marriages. Mind you these people already carry out marriages between people of faith and those without (which their beliefs could oppose), same sex couples in civil partnerships, and even divorcees. We do not see Murdo Fraser or anyone else for that matter wanting these believes about the current definition of marriage being similarly protested.

Also what about in the workplace. Will people engaged in same-sex marriages be allowed of have pictures of their spouse and family around their work station, or would the objector who has their opposite-sex spouse and family on his object and force that to be taken down?

Then there are other public servants, the police who have to deal with homophobic abuse against a same sex couple who are married. Medical staff who would have to admit the spouse of a same-sex marriage into a patients room when only family are allowed. The benefits officer adjudicating on the benefits that a couple deserve as a respect of their marriage. Etc, etc. 

In other words as far as public servants go they have to serve the public. Their views cannot get in the way of them carrying out their duties. I know that this question was aimed solely at the task of registrars, but by being so openly worded to avoid looking targeted and openly homophobic in one area of public service, there is no way that such an open ended statement can be allowed anywhere near this Bill or its consequences.

Which leads to the final question:

Question S4W-17757: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will amend the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 to specify that organisations opposed to same-sex marriage will not fail to meet the charity test because of this view.

Now I thought the aim of all the charities in Scotland was to help those in need. Whether that is adults or children. Would a charity aimed at helping children not help a child if their parents were or had been in a same-sex marriage. Would a charity fail to help someone because there were in a same-sex marriage, if they were hungry, thirsty, needed clothes, were sick or  in prison. Because if they failed on any of these definitions of charity they fail not just the charity test laid down in law but that laid down by Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46. 

So Murdo is looking to protect faith charities from one part of the bible by allowing them to break another part of it. If they want to provide a charity they should follow the examples of the one they base their faith on surely. He didn't seem to differentiate between those worthy of his charity and those who didn't. In fact he broke the norms of his time reaching out to those groups that those of his faith felt were unclean, rather than banishing them from his help.

All of these 'amendments' from Murdo Fraser are probably meant to address very specific areas but in order to appear to not be stigmatising people who will become married to a same-sex partner  he has opened his parameters wide. The result is that in trying not to focus on particularly homophobic language and instances he has opened the gap far too wide. 

It shows total disregard to his first question looking for respect in a democratic society. If people who are opposed to same-sex marriage want to be respected in a democratic society they should also respect those who want to be married to a same-sex partner. That respect will allow them to disagree without discriminating.

Those of us who support equal marriage also support freedom of expression. Our expression doesn't impinge on those who object, but their trying to squeeze how far our equality goes does make some of our number more anti allowing them to keep their freedoms.

Alex Salmond and the Royal Mail

So in his speech today Alex Salmond said that after independence he would return the Royal Mail to public ownership. Now I make no apology here for being a philately geek as this is where the issues arise from what Alex has said in such a blasé manner.

First up there is the name, he would have no powers over the Royal Mail. The only postal service in the World that does not need to use the nation's name in its title is that of the United Kingdom as in 1840 they were the first to offer a universal set price postal service. Every other nation from the USA to South Sudan has to have the name of the country in its postal service name and on its stamps.

I have no qualms about Alex salmond saying he would restore a public postal service, but I do when he says that it would be the Royal Mail.

However, on the subject of a public postal service, does that mean that the franchised counters out to grocery stores or other shops in our rural communities would also be brought back into public ownership and therefore into a custom state run enterprise. You see if Alex truly means that all units of the Scottish Mail Service are to be public we cannot have rural post services run in the local shop. Nor can we have grocers delivery groceries and mail as an all in one service. You see the post service has not been entirely publicly owned for some time. Sometimes the franchised counters do not live up to expectations or occasionally the store into which they have been franchised run into difficulty. Then the Royal Mail has had to find some alternative arrangement, and this has not always been immediate, nor it is always fit for the purpose that those locals would like to expect, initially.

Then we have the matter that Alex Salmond's post service would have to operate outside of the UK. People will know that the cost of posting to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man is the same as to the UK. But these are crown dependencies. What Alex Salmond is wanting is a fully independent Scotland within the framework of  the UK.

While in the UK to post a letter up to 100g currently costs 60p first class and 50p second class. If I wanted to post something from Londonderry to Letterkenny, it would cost 88p minimum (up to 10g) but rise to £2.38 for between 90 and 100g. This is because Ireland counts as being in the EU. I know of people close to the border who have family in Northern Ireland who will order to the Northern Irish address as it is cheaper by quite some way.

Independence and the mail will have an affect on Scottish jobs.

Amazons largest fulfillment centre is in Dunfermline. But with increased mail costs to the rest of the UK will it be economically viable to keep both the one there and the one at Gourock? Probably not. So they will probably close the Gourock centre and scale down the one at Dunfermline. The same applies to other distribution networks that have based themselves in Scotland because of the space. With increased postage as shown above being quite steep for even small items the cost of distribution by mail order would mean a scaling back of these type of industries. That would mean a lot of lost jobs in the central belt where the M8, M9 and M80 triangle have prided themselves in becoming a distribution hub.

Independence would affect these jobs, these industries. Therefore is not enough for Alex Salmond to merely say that under independence the Royal Mail will be returned to public hands. Under independence mail will cost a lot more to send outwith Scotland and that has an impact on the cost of running companies and on people's jobs.

The Royal Mail is an essential service to people all across the UK. But under independence 5.25 million of those citizens will find it has an impact on them, the work they do, keeping in touch with family and friends and maybe even their job. People in the borders will be able to get around this, they'll use the address of their family or friends in Carlisle or Berwick to order stuff from English based firms. You don't believe this. This already happens with people from the Republic ordering stuff from UK companies to their f&f in Derry/Londonderry, Newry or Enniskillen.

There are more questions that Alex and his SNP team have to answer about postal services under an independent Scotland, because this is another area where we are Better Together.

Carmichael's return to the Front Bench

So the first change announced in the Government reshuffle was not replacing the Tories who resigned yesterday, but did involve another change in the Whips Office. It saw Michael Moore replaced by Alistair Carmichael as Secretary of State for Scotland.

With less that a year to go before the referendum the return of Alistair's voice to the debates in Westminster and to the front bench is to be welcomed. His speeches in this Parliament have been confined to moving the writ for the Eastleigh by election as he has been restricted by his whips duties. To have him addressing Scottish issues from the dispatch box like he did in opposition for our party will strengthen the voice for better together. His law training will be able to unravel the bluster and bravado of the Nationalists as he forensically will take apart their arguments.

I'm sure Alex Salmond heart will have sunk a little when he learnt that Alistair was once again taking up the remit for Scotland. It is an area that the Northern Isles MP knows well having shadowed it from 2007-2010 (with a slight gap when he resigned to vote in favour of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty). In those years when the SNP were first in charge of the Scottish Parliament he was as combative against the SNP Government as he was the Labour Scottish Secretary, taking the fight to them on issues where they were letting down the people of Scotland. Now he is able to stand up for the Scots as the Government minister with responsibility in Westminster.

Normally there would be a wee dram to welcome the new Secretary of State for Scotland, but this one is currently going sober for the month to raise money for Macmillan Cancer Support. So may I suggest joining me with a donation there rather than a dram.

Michael Moore had done a good job since he was elevated as part of the first reshuffle less than a month into the Parliament replacing Danny Alexander as Secretary of State. For three years he has been very vocal and visible is stating the cause of Scotland being part of the UK. I'm sure he will still be very vocal in the Better Together campaign and giving his backing to Alistair in  his new role. But sometimes a change is good, especially in the run in to a important decision. This will be a change in style rather than substance, but as Alistair was the MP leading the General Election campaign for the Lib Dems in Scotland he is the man to have at the helm leading into this referendum.

I also expect his role in the Whips Office to be taken by a non-Scottish Liberal Democrat. We want all the Scottish MPs to be making contributions in the house over the next 11 months adding to the reasons that we are better together and that there are Scots in Government working for the best for fellow Scots who want to ensure that continues into the future.

Update As I was typing this is was announced that Don Foster the MP for Bath has replaced Alistair at the Whips Office.

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.

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. 

They're sending the bill to Buckingham Palace

They're sending the bill* to Buckingham Palace

with apologies to A.A. Milne

They're sending the bill to Buckingham Palace -
Christopher and Robin are planning their marriage.
Alice is writing her best woman's speech
"A writer's life is sometimes a peach"
                                     Says Alice.


They're sending the bill to Buckingham Palace -
Alice and Robyn can raise the romance.
"A double marriage along with the queens,
Just as soon as the bill is signed by the Queen"
                                     Says Alice.

They're sending the bill to Buckingham Palace -
But Christabel Robyn still needs equal marriage
The love of her life first married her as a man
The lost years are not in this government plan,
                                     Says Alice.

They're sending the bill to Buckingham Palace
And soon it will pass near Holyrood Palace.
But up Stormont's Hill the dinosaurs play,
But the DUP will lose this one day,
                                     Says Alice.


Stephen Glenn
16 July 2013 

* The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

When the Nationalists don't follow Norway's Example

I'm not saying I'm an oil expert, although I do have a degree in Economics that can help me understand both the macroeconomic and microeconomic consequences of actions. But Ian Taylor is a man who understands the oil industry. He is Chief Executive of oil and gas trader Vitol Plc.

One of the things we hear about from the Nationalissts is that post-independence the oil revenue will allow an independent Scotland to build up an oil fund like the one that Norway has been stockpiling for the last 30 plus years. Indeed Norway is often used as an example by the SNP as to how their model of Scotland will work.

However, as Taylor points out in today's Sunday Herald there is one place that the Nationalists are not following Norway and that is forecasting oil prices.

"Norway, so often held up as an example, are planning on an oil price of $77 a barrel in 2014 compared to the SNP's 'cautious' estimate of $113. Make no mistake – such over-optimistic assumptions would come at a real cost.

"The cash gap between peak and trough of oil revenues in the last decade is equivalent to the entire budget of the NHS in Scotland. I ask everyone reading this to consider one question. What if the Nationalists' optimistic projections are simply wrong?"

That is some gap! That is some hole in the budget for an independent Scottish economy that wants to base itself so dependently on oil revenue. That is something that doesn't need a degree in economics to tell you is going to be disasterous.

The countdown has finally begun

So now I know what I'll be doing on the day before my 45th Birthday.


Yes today it has been revealed that the last day that I am 44 is also going to be Referendum Day.

On the day I turned 40 I was interviewing Nick Clegg ahead of Liberal Democrat federal party conference on the day I turn 45 I shall probably be exhausted and most likely at a count. At least there is the weekend to celebrate hopefully not just my birthday and the boss's wedding anniversary (also the day after) but I trust that the people of Scotland will know that they are better together and not some separate identity.

I've yet to see what that other politician with a link to Linlithgow will do should the raison d'être of his whole political identity falls apart. At least as a Liberal Democrat while I recognise the rights of individuals to self determination, and I accept that there are some in my own party who support the independence line of this, my political identity goes beyond a decision on whether we should declare independence or not. I joined a party that was set up for fairness for all.

To build a strong economy and a fair society you need leaders who will honest and open about the situation that you are in. Sadly the SNP, even with a former energy economist as leader, believe that the price of oil can only reach its maximum potential and all will be well for an independent Scotland. Sadly Big Eck's 'long walk to freedom' has meant that he and the SNP government have taken their eyes off other things while their eyes are focused on cloud cuckoo land.

I know what it means to be liberal and that will apply no matter what the outcome in 2014, do the SNP have any idea what it means to be pro-Scottish and part of the UK if they lose on that day. The Lib Dems are already talking about what will come after when the people of Scotland speak and are determined to bring more powers to Scotland within a Federal UK, we have 545 days from now the tell the people of Scotland why that is better for them than the uncertainty of so much from going alone.

A step back towards Section 28

As the Scottish Parliament heads towards Equal Marraige the menace that is some of the most vocal of those opposed is seeking to set the clock back. Scotland for Marriage in their response to the consultation have raised concerns about how the subject of same sex marriage and have urged that parents should have the right to remove their children from the classroom whenever such issues are to be discussed.

It is a step back to Section 28, which even now many of the Tories who voted to bring it in say was a mistake. But is also means that there will be some children in classes who will not learn that the family of some of their class mates is normal and allowed. Some of those who have two parents of the same sex will by those children who are excluded by their prejudiced parents been seen as odd, out of the ordinary. Also because they are not allowed to have heard about it with the rest of their class they will think it is disgusting and that those children are to be kept away from, shunned even bullied.

You see while those who fail to acknowledge that the next generation growing up do not come from homogenous families of one man and one women, those that do not fit into that mode, that they fail to let their children learn about will continue to be put under pressure from their kids. It is a self fulfilling prophecy that kids with same-sex parents will be picked on at school. If the attitude of some is to take their kids out of classes that discuss the issue those prejudices will be passed down.

As the victim of bullying at school, because I stood out as different, even though at the time I didn't realise (or maybe just didn't want to acknowledge) why I know that life can be tough. If some children are not allowed to discuss these issues in the midst of those that are affected they will not see them as normal and will therefore react in just the way that bullies have done through the years.

So Scotland for Marriage are merely going to propagate the continuation of homophobic bullying, not only of kids who are LGBT but also those perceived to be and those whose parents are known to be, if they achieve their goal.

I hope the Scottish Government stands firm. It is important that we do not slip back into a Section 28 like quagmire. For the well being of all our school children it is important that everyone learns about the fact that some people have a mum and dad, some two mums or dads, some multiples of one or both due to divorce and also that some only have one parent. Just as some are fostered or adopted. It doesn't make any of them any different from each other, nor the love of their parents is any less for any of them. That is the key, that is what the lessons will be trying to teach.

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.