Abraham Lincoln On Union

I've determined once and for all to finish Shelby Foote's amazing "Civil War: A Narrative". Starting at the beginning again means I've already gotten to take in the magnificent language of Abraham Lincoln's inaugural address. Though said in much different circumstances I feel some parts reverberate strongly in the run up to this year's independence referendum in Scotland.

"Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends?" 

and

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Scottish Nationalists: Religious Freedom Only For Some On #EqualMarriage

Gosh, it has been a long time since my last marriage equality post!

The Scottish Health Secretary, SNP's Alex Neill, has confirmed registrars will be able to refuse to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, though local authorities will have to ensure same-sex couples can get married.

All very "liberal" you might say, with his use of "common sense" to explain how local authorities with deal with such refusals. Except, of course, fundamentally there is no common sense here because it is giving registrars the right to refuse only one sort of marriage. Why just one sort? Erm... well... the gays aren't very popular.

Fantastic. It'll all be sold under some spin on the concept of "freedom" yet it flies fundamentally in the face of freedom. When will gay registrars get to refuse to marry Christian or Muslim couples? When will white supremacists get to refuse black couples (or interracial couples, heaven forbid!)? Never. Because both scenarios would be deemed unacceptable, offensive, yet they would be actual freedom in action.

What the SNP has proposed is offensive to common sense. It is the freedom to hate for a few, and everyone else will just have to lump it and keep their own opinions on whether other couples should marry to themselves.

Disgusting. Illiberal and unjust. Come back to me when you have a consistent policy rather than a "same-sex couples upset some people" excuse.

Stephen seems just as angry as I am, but has even better points...

DOMA and #Prop8 Struck Down (Probably): A Historic Day For American LGBT People

It has been a long wait for the resolution of the Prop 8 cases. It has been nearly 5 years since the voters of California decided to overrule their fellow citizens ability to marry. It has been 3 years (and I really can't believe it has been that long!) since Judge Walker overturned that vote. In that time the opinion polls have rapidly changed and even the main financial backers of the proposition have backed off from their role in the campaign. Now the US Supreme Court has decided that those fighting to keep Prop 8 in place have no standing before the court. This leaves some complications as they thus made no decision on what this actually means practically. 

Though the Governor of California has advised clerks to prepare to issue marriage licenses when this decision takes effect in a few weeks time, there is some concern that legally the decision may only have a limited effect (i.e. only the plaintiffs may have the right to be married or only people in the counties they are from). Time will tell as the authorities in California begin to work out the issues. 

Meanwhile the Supreme Court has also struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. This will have a huge effect upon the lives of married same-sex couples across the USA. Extremely awesome ruling that doesn't over-extend the power of the federal government into state affairs. Well done to the Supremes! 

With Rudd now likely to become Prime Minister of Australia (the first openly pro-equality PM they've had, he's changed since the last time ;), if only briefly, is another good sign. Plus tomorrow Scotland will release their marriage equality bill. 

Another good week for the cause of equal marriage!

2012: The Year I Had Been Waiting For

2004 marked an important moment in my personal life; it was the year I met and fell in love with Jim. It was also the year the then Labour Government introduced civil partnership legislation. It was then, at the very moment I found the man of my dreams, I started to feel annoyed at the lack of marriage equality.

8 years I've moaned and screamed here, and in other places, about this unfairness. Even as recently as 2010 I was pessimistic of the chances of equal marriage becoming reality any time soon. But things change and, as is often the case, it looks like I was quite wrong.

2012 not only saw a consultation from the Westminster Government on civil marriage equality, but the announcement of full(ish) marriage equality legislation being introduced for England and Wales and the same from the Scottish Government too. And we now have many organisations and campaigns, run by far cleverer and more political savvy people than me, pushing forward to see this legislation put on to the law books.

I feel like we have reached the point where my shouting and screaming no longer has a place in the fight. This pleases me greatly. 2013 shall, I have decided, be the year I leave the fight to my betters. There are still things to fight for (such as equal pension rights, equality for mixed-sex civil partnerships and restitution of marriages dissolved in the past) and against (the haters) but I'm pretty confident that these things are in hand. My grumpy and honest approach has been described as negative before, and I feel is probably not best-suited to win over the more politically minded people that marriage equality needs now.

So goodbye good ol' 2012, the year I never thought would come, and hello to 2013, the year that shall bring us ever greater freedom.

Happy New Year, Dear Constant Reader. Now what shall I find to moan about next....

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

I Agree With Gordon Wilson But I Don't Think He Agrees With Himself #equalmarriage

Gordon Wilson, former leader of the SNP, is just never going to be on the same page about marriage equality as this liberal unionist.

He has come out firmly against it before and is now set to be even clearer at an upcoming Coalition for Marriage SNP Conference fringe. He said to BBC Scotland:

"What you have to watch is when the state believes that it has a superior claim to tell its own citizens what to do and what to think."

I couldn't agree more. The state must never demand people do something (or not do something) without extremely good reasons (such as criminalising murder). Freedom must be a guiding aim of any Government.

Unfortunately Gordon Wilson's concept of the Government keeping it's nose out of other people's business is that the Government should not allow people to do things he doesn't like. In fact he feels it is fascistic of the Government to allow people to do things he disagrees with. He also thinks it is fascistic not to enforce the will of the (supposed) majority upon those who want to live in a way they disagree with.

I think he may want to refer to one of Benito Mussolini's definitions of fascism:

Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.

I have a great deal of sympathy with people who are worried they might have to marry icky gays or not be allowed to be nasty about them in front of children (even if I wouldn't want to go down the local for a pint with them). Their right to be utter bastards (and my right to call them such, after Lord Carey's Nazi comments I've stopped caring about being nice) should be protected and we must ensure any future legislation ensures that nobody has to do anything they don't want to. But whining about Nazi marriage equality enthusiasts and fascist Government proposals for equal marriage does not strengthen the case for religious liberty.

By attacking the right to marry whom you please rather than a state mandated definition of who is acceptable, you allow the Government the right to make that decision and others. What happens when they decide which God you get to worship? Either you believe in the freedom to live and believe how you wish, or you believe that majority opinion and/or Government authority can control your choices.

It is time for the anti-marriage equality campaigners to understand exactly what they are saying when they compare us to fascists.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

National Marriage Sunday Renews The Campaign Against LGBT People In Scotland

I believe that some people who have concerns about marriage equality are not homophobic. Whilst it is hard for those of us who are personally affected by their opposition to accept this, I think it is something we should remember. Know thy enemy after all!

But when it comes to opposition from the upper echelon of the Catholic Church's command structure, I feel that the "We aren't homophobic!" line is completely without merit. Today, in Scotland, they have declared it to be National Marriage Sunday and propose to form a new group against marriage equality known as the National Commission for Marriage and the Family. Yet we know just how their arguments will go...

Item: People 'should not act on homosexual feelings', says Catholic spokesman

Their insistence that they are just concerned about their religious freedom and protecting "true marriage" is shown clearly to be a lie. Their campaign against marriage equality is rooted in personal and religious distaste for LGBT people. But it's not like they are trying to hide that...

Item: Scottish Catholics: Homosexuality cuts lifespan by up to 20 years

They are often reluctant to share the sources of these figures but the 20 years figure is a dead give away. That suggests they are using this 2005 study which is based, and this is excellent stuff, on a study of obituaries. Even a younger version of me worked out how that might be an incredibly flawed way of working.

And of course whether our "lifestyle" leads to a shorter lifespan is rather irrelevant to this debate. We do not decide who gets to marry based on how long they have to live, would the church ban a woman from marrying a man with HIV/AIDS?

Item: In reversal, Catholic Church backs ‘Kill the Gays’ bill

After previously opposing the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill, a Catholic Archbishop and other Christian leaders have called for it to be put back on to the Parliamentary agenda. Although this may be because the death penalty part is now being downplayed, the bill remains repugnant.

Lest you think I have some hatred towards the Catholic church and Catholics in general, I don't. I have a problem with the leadership. I'm picking on them today as they are the ones who will be spreading a message of hate in their church services today disguised as "concern". There are individuals within the church who support marriage equality and some polls show a majority of Catholics (in Scotland) support it too! We must reach out to those people and ask them to reach out to their leadership and point them in the right direction.

But be under no doubt... the Catholic church leadership do not oppose marriage equality out of some high-minded matter of principle. They do so because they despise LGBT people and our relationships. I wish I could make our opponents imagine how they would feel if not only were they told their relationship with their loved one was sick but that people ACTIVELY tried to destroy that relationship and make them live a life of celibacy. Unfortunately, because many in the Catholic hierarchy do live a life of celibacy, this may be too great a leap of imagination and empathy.

I'll leave you with this.... when the representative of the Catholic church spends almost a whole debate on the matter of whether teachers will be sacked because of their views on marriage equality (as in the first link above), you know they are losing the argument. They are desperate and I'm concerned this will lead to further hateful remarks as they try to scaremonger.

Religious freedom must be protected, and if only the Catholic church and other religious opponents would work with the Scottish Government and marriage equality campaigners there might be a good chance it actually will be!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Scottish Marriage Equality Judgement Day

Today the Scottish Government shall discuss and, perhaps, decide upon the future of the marriage equality campaign in Scotland.

The choice, to my biased eyes anyway, seems clear. On the one hand there is a campaign for individual and religious freedom, fighting for the right of all couples to marry. On the other is a campaign hellbent on maintaining the current status quo, ignoring the wishes of smaller religions and determined to put individual citizens rights up to a majority vote.

Given the history of prejudice against Catholics, especially in certain parts of Scotland where such prejudice continues to this day, you'd think the Catholic Church would be wary of creating a precedent of putting minority rights up to a vote. But, alas, so single-minded are they in their loathing for individual freedom that they aren't thinking ahead to where that might lead. Shall we put the rights of Catholics up to a vote? Or Muslims? The concept is as ridiculous as it is disturbing.

Today, I hope, the Scottish Government embraces freedom of religion over the demands of the authoritarians and supports marriage equality. Fingers crossed!

As an aside, this blog is not dead! But my laptop is. I should have a new one by the middle of next month but until then posts shall be scarce!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Tories Playing Politics With The Union

There is not many issues I consider more important than unionism. I know, I'm not as vocal about it as I used to be. I felt it was the one thing the Tories could be relied upon to defend. They might spend most of their time supporting their rich, business buddies and policing the sexual mores of the population but when it came to the Union, the Tories would be there come what may. Alas...

It has becoming increasingly obvious, in the years since 1997's decimation of the Tories in Scotland and the introduction of devolution, that the Tories were starting to embrace their inner-Little Englander. But I didn't realise just how far the rot had set in until today's latest instalment in the Peter "Cash for Cameron" Cruddas was revealed.

It would seem the Tories' unionism is somewhat lukewarm now and they are looking forward to a SNP victory in the independence referendum where they can snub their noses at an independent Scotland's demands!

“We, as a party, have to be seen to be fighting to keep the Union together. Even if we don’t agree with it, because at the end of it all, if the Scots say we’re out of here and they want to go independent, we can turn around and say it’s not what we wanted, it’s not what we campaigned for, you can’t have this, you can’t have that, and you can get on with it.”

That is a quote that will play right into the SNP's hands, and one that really shows the lack of principle, belief and passion in the Tories today. That's not just a problem for them, these last two weeks of petrol panics, pasty taxes and other such ridiculous petty little battles show just how devoid of focus and policies mainstream politics is (and George Galloway's victory shows how soft support for the Big Three parties is). But of all issues, the very future of our country is one on which you'd hope the Tories could at least set out a clear position rather than sit on the fence.

It is clear the Liberal Democrats must make the case for unionism in the Coalition. We have a vision of a federal Union, one that enables freedom for our nations and regions whilst keeping our country together. It's a bold, sensible and practical solution to the current constitutional mess left by Labour. We need to be screaming it from the rooftops. It's time for the Lib Dems to replace the cynical, foolish and poorly lead Conservative and Unionist party and become the new party of the Union.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

How To Lose A Referendum Part 1

David Cameron and the British Government have been playing silly-buggers with our Union and it's pissing me off. We all knew, after the election victory of the SNP last year, that a referendum on Scottish independence was inevitable in the next few years. And if you're a grumpy old unionist like me, then you've known it was on the cards ever since Labour's poorly thought out devolution (I favour a clearer, federal structure). Given this, I think it's a little thoughtless for the British Government to turn around and tell the Scottish Government when and how they can hold this referendum.

In a statement to MPs, Mr Moore said the government's "clear view" was that the power to hold a referendum was "reserved" to Westminster under devolution laws passed in 1998 and that the Scottish government could not authorise a referendum on its own.

Do they have any idea on how that comes across? It might be the legal situation left thanks to Labour's rubbish future planning, but that sounds like just the sort of soundbite that plays straight into slippery Salmond's hands. We need to show the Scottish people why they should vote to stay in the Union not give them good reasons to resent interference from Westminster!

And lest you think this is a Coalition foul up, Labour appear to adopt the same sort of attitude. Here's what you do, accept the Scottish Government's date, make sure the question asked is clear and fair and then fight like mad to show all the benefits of being together rather than living on this island apart from each other. Is it really that hard?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Two Front Attack On Equal Partnership Rights Continues

In Scotland we have the announcement from the Church of Scotland (although almost certainly not "official" given the lack of oversight from their conference) that they will oppose marriage equality. Hardly a surprise, but another sign of the faithful joining forces to oppose religious freedom for other churches and individual freedom.

Below we have a video of Wednesday's Scotland for Marriage rally, featuring some bizarre arguments against marriage equality. It seemed almost to be just a lot of talking for talking's sake.

There are claims in the video that marriage equality will be destructive by putting off opposite-sex couples from marrying or making those already married feel sullied. To be frank, if your marriage is reliant on the "wholesomeness" of other's marriages then you may as well get divorced now. If your marriage doesn't stand on it's own merits, it doesn't stand at all!

It's a long set of hateful, intolerant ranting without logic or sense. At around 12 minutes we get the polygamy argument again! BINGO!

 

South of the border at Westminster, further to this month's action in the Lords, Edward Leigh, Conservative MP for Gainsborough has put forward an Early Day Motion with the same aim of scuppering religious civil partnerships. Yet again I must ask: if your aim is to protect those who don't wish to carry out such civil partnerships then why not put forward an amendment to the Equality Act rather than to try and scupper religious civil partnerships in general? No this is another wrecking motion put forward dishonestly by those who do not have the courage of their convictions to proclaim their homophobia (and hatred of civil partnerships in general) out loud. Cowards as well as homophones. There is a surprise. Here's the list of the usual suspects supporting the EDM so far.

Bone, Peter Conservative Party

Brazier, Julian Conservative Party 

Bruce, Fiona Conservative Party

Dorries, Nadine Conservative Party

Jackson, Stewart Conservative Party

Leigh, Edward Conservative Party 

Pritchard, Mark Conservative Party 

Robertson, Laurence Conservative Party

Turner, Andrew Conservative Party

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Scotland For Marriage's Anti-Marriage Equality Campaign Begins Today

Today saw the launch of a new anti-marriage equality campaign in Scotland, backed by a number of Christian organisations.

They've launched a website, and held a rally outside the Scottish Parliament. As well as generally opposing individual rights, they also wish to ensure those rights are dealt with by a referendum rather than through Parliament.

The typical "slippery slope" arguments are available on their website's front page proclaiming marriage equality might lead to (cue shocked hush) POLYGAMY! Of course why whether someone wants one partner or several is any of their business is not discussed.

Given that such an organised campaign is now in motion against marriage equality in Scotland, I've done my bit and donated £5.00 to their opposite numbers at Equal Marriage. I urge you to donate to them and, even if you don't live in Scotland!, even more strongly urge you to respond to the Scottish Government's consultation using their rather handy form. Whilst a majority of negative responses may not have any effect on the Governments response (as per this response in Westminster to receiving a majority of negative responses to the relgious civil partnership consultation), it can't hurt. The more positive the response the stronger the argument, so get typing! Individual responses will be even better.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Scottish Tory Leader Contenders On Marriage Equality

The Equality Network has helpfully provided some quotes from a Sunday Herald interviews with the Scottish Conservative Party leadership contenders on marriage equality: 

The Sunday Herald yesterday interviewed the four candidates for leader of the Scottish Conservatives. One of the questions was “Do you support the introduction of gay marriage?”

Jackson Carlaw said “Those churches which are content to hold gay marriage ceremonies should be allowed to do so. Those churches that do not wish to do so should not be compelled.”

Ruth Davidson said “I do support the introduction, but with a vital proviso: that faith organisations should not be compelled to perform ceremonies if they do not wish to.”

Murdo Fraser said “I support religious groups having the freedom to carry out same-sex unions if they wish. I support civil partnerships for same-sex couples, but am sceptical as to whether the definition of marriage should be amended to include these.”

Margaret Mitchell said “I’m fully supportive of civil partnerships. For me under the Christian faith, marriage is between a man and a woman.”

 I don't think that requires further comment... 

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Marriage Equality In Scotland

With the news of a delay in the Westminster marriage equality consultation, attention has turned to Scotland where there has been a pointless argument brewing.

It all began when a SNP MSP called John Mason put forward perhaps the most misleading motion in Scottish Parliamentary history:

"That the Parliament notes the current discussion about same-sex marriages and the Scottish Government’s forthcoming public consultation concerning equal marriage; further notes that while some in society approve of same-sex sexual relationships, others do not agree with them; desires that Scotland should be a pluralistic society where all minorities can live together in peace and mutual tolerance; believes that free speech is a fundamental right and that even when there is disagreement with another person’s views, that person has the right to express these views, and considers that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages."

It all sounds reasonable enough and I can't think of anyone who'd have much of a problem with it. But that is the problem, for me anyway, it basically helps paint the picture that marriage equality supporters want to force every church in the country to marry same-sex couples. No one suggests this, this motion was created based on a false starting premise and that is what I find so wrong with it.

Patrick Harvie, a Green MSP, decided to add an amendment to the motion:

“notes that the balance between these views has changed substantially over recent decades, with the 2006 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey showing 53% in agreement with equal marriage and only 21% in disagreement, and a poll in 2010 showing 58% support with only 19% against; congratulates the Scottish Youth Parliament on the launch of its Love Equally campaign for equal marriage and civil partnership, a campaign it voted to select after consulting with over 42,000 young people across Scotland; believes that the Scottish Government is recognising this shift in public attitudes with its forthcoming consultation on equal marriage; recognises that allowing same sex marriage and mixed sex civil partnerships would in no way undermine the rights and freedoms of whose who do not wish to participate in them; and further believes it would be both right and popular for secular and religious Scots alike to be free to reach their own view on the legal status that is right for their own relationship, instead of being banned by law from having their relationships recognised on equal terms.”

A bit of a mouthful, I think Lib Dem MSP Willie Rennie's amendment says it more eloquently:

That the Parliament notes the current discussion about same-sex marriages and looks forward to the Scottish Government’s forthcoming public consultation concerning equal marriage; aspires for Scotland to be one of the most fair and equal places in the world; supports the extension of legal marriage to lesbian and gay couples; and believes that, while there would be no mandate on religious organisations, those religious denominations who wish to celebrate marriages for lesbian and gay people should be free to do so.

So the accusations of homophobia flew, even from John Mason's own party, and nothing much has been achieved beyond some political manoeuvring. The only sign of hope is that only 3 MSPs have signed Mason's motion (all SNP) whilst 31 MSPs have backed Harvie's. They are 19 SNP, 9 Labour, 2 Lib Dem and 1 Green.

The Tories seem to be keeping out of the debate. Perhaps John Mason's motion was too liberal for them?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Lib Dem Gordon Macdonald's Not Very Convincing On Marriage Equality

It is a great shame to have the below article brought to my attention (yes I know it's a week late in getting it to you but life intervenes!). A Lib Dem candidate, standing on a manifesto that includes introducing marriage equality, suggests he'll vote according to his conscience. A conscience that seems dead-set against such a liberal move. The original story is here.

Now for a LibDem candidate who is being taken to task for sticking to his beliefs. The problem is that his beliefs seem to run counter to official party policy. Paul Brownsey of Bearsden asks Gordon Macdonald, the LibDem candidate in his constituency: “If you are elected to the Scottish Parliament, will you support full marriage equality for gays and lesbians in accordance with your party’s official policy or will you oppose it in accordance with the policies of Christian Action Research and Education for whom you work as parliamentary officer?”

Macdonald made this submission to Holyrood in 2000: “CARE for Scotland considers that sex is properly enjoyed within the context of a marriage relationship between a man and a woman… We consider that homosexual practice does not equate with heterosexual intercourse. We commend and support homosexual people who are living celibate lives in order to obey and honour God.”

That seems like a no to full marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

In answer to the current question, Macdonald replied: “I’m campaigning to represent Strathkelvin and Bearsden in the Scottish Parliament for the LibDems, not my current employer! I think this is a matter of conscience and would say so if the issue came up for a vote in the Scottish Parliament.” 

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Marriage Equality And The Scottish Parliamentary Elections

So pretty much all the manifestos are out from the various parties fighting for seats in the Scottish Parliament. It's time to see where they all stand on my favourite/least favourite issue: marriage equality.

The Liberal Democrats are very clear:

“Extend legal marriage to gay couples and civil partnerships to heterosexual couples”

And the Greens are equally direct:

“Develop a more tolerant Scotland, introducing equal marriage.

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.”

Labour are little less clear (despite protestations to the contrary in the pledge itself!):

“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.”

“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.”

Just what we want... more investigations and consultations. *sigh* But at least it's up for "consideration".

The Scottish National Party are also up for "consulting":

“We recognise the range of views on the question of same-sex marriage and registration of civil partnerships. We will therefore begin a process of consultation and discussion on these issues”

Alex Salmond has also spoken about this:

Bernard Ponsonby: John McKay from Leith asks "Mr Salmond, if re-elected, what stance will you take on the question of allowing heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships, and to allow same-sex couples to marry? David Cameron, Nick Clegg and David Miliband – I think he means Ed Miliband – have already stated that they support the idea."

Alex Salmond: Yeah, I mean, we'll put a consultation paper out, that's in the manifesto. I'm supportive, as long as any individual denomination is not forced into the position. That seems to me very important.

Bernard Ponsonby: Sorry, just explain that last bit.

Alex Salmond: Well you wouldn't have, and incidentally I don't think the gay community are advocating, a circumstance where a denomination would be forced to have a marriage in church, and, you know, some people are confused about that position, but that's not what's being advocated. But I'm supportive and it will go out to consultation.

The Scottish Socialist Party have their heart in the right place:

“The strengthening of civil partnership legislation to full equality with marriage, including religious ceremonies"

But I think the idea of "strengthening" civil partnership legislation is different to introducing marriage equality (which is a separately legislated right). I suspect this is simply a lack of understanding of the issues and a wish to be seen to be on the right side of the argument, rather than some weird alternative view.

Even the "old" Liberal Party is getting in on the act.

“Marriage – should be open to all. Gender-free domestic partnership laws.”

And so it came to pass, that marriage equality would be an almost universally accepted manifesto committment in a UK election. The Tories are conspicuous by their absence among the "Big 4" parties and even among parties likely to get representation at Holyrood. Same old Tories? Or did they just miss the memo?

The Equality Network has been doing all the legwork on this, and I urge you to subscribe to their marriage equality news updates.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Scotland Needs Champions. Don't We All?

Nationalism is such a regressive, backward political philosophy. There's nothing wrong with thinking people within a "nation" should have rights to govern themselves. There's nothing wrong with believing in nurturing and maintaining "national" traditions. These are worthy ideals. But nationalism often, if not always, brings those philosophies and mixes them up with a sense of "us against them", of a "fight" with some external other.

You need look no further than the Scottish National Party to see high ideals and low brow prejudices sitting side by side. The SNP espouses progressive economic and social policies alongside it's calls for independence. These calls draw not upon sensible economics nor upon a desire to free themselves from some despotic British dictatorship (our Prime Minister, after all, is currently a Scot!). No, they draw upon a deep racist spirit held within the hearts of quite a few SNP voters against their "ancient foes", the English.

You might laugh at that, but it is undeniably true. Speak to a few Scottish people and eventually you will find a couple whose hatred for the English is so strong it is quite disturbing.

Any party whose base is thus constructed is not one any sane, reasonable person should support.

It's no different down south. The English nationalists again attempt to wrap themselves up with the usual reasonable policies. But underneath you find their true feelings.

There is a dark soul at the centre of nationalist movements, one that speaks to humanity's primal instincts to hide from change, to fight "the other" and to defend their territory for no other reason than because it's their territory.

We surely must aspire to more than this, to solving our problems, to moving forward and changing. Our world is messed up, lives wasted slaving for corporate masters, true freedom remains ever elusive. We cannot face these issues without forgetting old rivalries, working together and overcoming our irrational minds.

Vote not for people who speak to the past, but to those who speak to the future.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Attacking Scottish Nationalists For Once

As someone who lives in London, I spend a lot of time (or at least I used to!) attacking English nationalists, who seem to get quite annoyed that I single them out over the Scottish. Well that's just geography for you, not a political statement of support for the SNP. So it gives me great pleasure to link to an article about one the SNP's shady illiberal views... they have a few...

The SNP and its pro-religionist homophobic agenda


This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Unionists Shame

God darn it. Don't you hate civil servants and their stupid ideas. They proposed "solutions" to stopping Scotland laying claim to the North Sea oil fields. They suggested even sowing a movement for independence in the Orkney's and the Shetland's.

I am, as you all well know, a unionist (small u) and believe in the continuation of the Union. But I do not believe in treating those in northern Britain with suspicion or fear nor in treating them as vassals. It should not even have crossed the minds of the British civil servants to consider a situation where an independent Scotland might lay claim to the fields and suggests a level of cynicism, English nationalism and bad faith in the higher echelons of our Government.

That is disgusting. And when I share the same opinion as the leader of the SNP, we all know it has to be pretty darn awful a thing to have brought our opinions into alignment.

The Union is surely doomed if people in positions of power fail to respect the unity of our island and instead try to put one regions rights above another. As always I find myself more and more disheartened at the prospects for the survival of our country for many more years. Let me be the first to say that if our Union does fail I am starting the Kentish Nationalists movement to try to ensure we don't end up dominated by the sorts of career civil servants who come up with stupid ideas like those released today who seem to be so prevalent in London.

Political Earthquake?

I awoke this morning to news that the Scottish Nationalist Party had beaten expectations and took a "safe" seat from Labour in Glasgow.

As a liberal unionist, there is no result I would have liked other than a Liberal Democrat victory. But I still would have preferred a Labour victory over the SNP. As they say the opposition does not win elections, the Government loses them. Hopefully this is less a reaction for Scottish nationalism and more a reaction against the current UK Government.

Gordon Brown has got to go after this summer's terrible by-election carnage. I had great hopes when he took office, his dour attitude sat well in comparison to Tony Blair's faux enthusiasm and his declared Britishness won me over completely. And I don't feel like he has made any huge mistakes, however I feel he has made a far worse error: he has not done anything positive.

As his administration slowly collapses he has been paralysed and has done nothing to shore it up... this has allowed the Tories to make gains south of the border and the SNP to use their so far fairly stable Scottish Government to make gains north of it. This is unforgivable and I trust the Labour party will ensure it is led into what seems can only be a terrible election with someone fresh.

I fear the damage is too great and, with the future possibility of a UK Government led by the increasing divisive Tories and the Scottish Government led by the SNP, this countries continued existence is threatened.

Should the Union fall I, for one, would be deeply upset. To find myself living in a renewed Kingdom of Eng-er-land would be truly a terrible moment. Alas, I feel I am in the minority now... what a sad last testament it would be to the British people: sharing the same islands, but unable to live together.

The Partition Of The United Kingdom

With the the 60th Anniversary of the partition of India being "celebrated" (how they can celebrate an event marred by such tribal violence and near genocide I don't know... hey let's celebrate the Holocaust!) we in Britain get the beginnings of our partition as planned by the SNP in Scotland.

Nationalism is one of the great evils of the 20th Century, the breakdown of the empires into nationstates was the beginning of the waves of genocide that have torn this world apart. They started with the Russian pogroms against the Jews and the Turkish killings of Armenians and Greeks during and just after the First World War and still haven't ended nearly a century later (Hey Darfur! Let's have a Sudan nationstate for the Sudanese and get rid of anyone different!).

We must not allow the feelings of ill will between the "English" and the "Scottish" to lead to a break up of our country. Why? Because history has shown that said ill will only increases with a partition and can take decades to heal. Just look at India and Pakistan, the Balkans etc. etc.

Let us try to live together in our multinational country filled with vibrance and cultural diversity rather than pidgeonhole ourselves into bland, national units in a biege nationstate.