After the event.

It's all over, bar the shouting - and, regretfully, there appears to have been quite a bit of that! However, the result of the referendum is fixed, and no amount of conspiracy theories; alleged ballot-box, or count, fraud; or even of different questions on ballot papers in different polling stations, is going to change it.  If Mr Salmond is willing to accept the result, I fail to see why others appear to be unable to do so!

I also trust that friends, who were on opposite 'sides' of the pre-referendum debate, will discover that their friendship is real, and above politics of any sort.  A true friend is one who sticks with a person through thick and thin.  Such a friend does whatever is possible to encourage, and support, and even bless.  A true friend is neither triumphalist (as some 'No' supporters have shown themselves to be), nor sullen (as some 'Yes' supporters have shown themselves to be).  

This is even more important within families and, while I have not yet heard of any familial discord based on the result of the referendum, there were certainly families with members supporting opposite sides.

In my archives, I came across a story that may, or may not, be true.  Either way, it does make an important point.  It reads: "It was the interval between final two rounds in a boxing match.  In one corner, a severely bruised and battered fighter sat on his stool, while his helpers worked furiously at his bleeding face.  His manager leaned in.  'I think he's got you whipped.' he said.  'Yes', agreed the pugilist, gazing dizzily through nearly-closed eyes.  'I should have got him earlier, when he was by himself.' "

The manager may not have realised it, but his comment was as damaging as the physical cuts and bruises that the boxer had already suffered.  It's bad enough to have to bear the stinging blows; the buffeting; the battering; of an enemy. However, the criticism, and discouraging words of someone close can be much worse.

I trust that the good relationship that I had with many who supported the 'Yes' campaign will continue now that the decision has been made - at least for the foreseeable future.  I would contend that it is certainly the responsibility of those of us who claim to be disciples of the Jesus Who said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matt.5:9) to do all that we can to bring about peace and reconciliation in our land. 

May all of us go forward, united in our love for our nation, and determined to see it flourish, as Glasgow's original motto states: "by the preaching of His Word, and the praising of His Name"!

Yes, or No?

With only one full day before the polls open for the Scotland referendum, this is my final post on the subject.  I have made on secret of my personal conviction that the best future for Scotland is within a continuing United Kingdom.  This is not, as Mr Salmond was suggesting in a clip on the BBC programme, Reporting Scotland, earlier this evening, that I do not believe that Scotland could 'go it alone' - I merely happen to be one of those who believes that there is strength in unity that is lost in isolation.

Mr Salmond's interview by Jackie Bird was, to say the least, interesting.  Time and time again, he 'ducked' the direct question that she had put to him.  This, I have noticed, has been a feature of the 'Yes' campaign which, however much he denies it, has been very much the campaign of Mr Salmond, supported by the SNP.  I have been told, ad nauseum, that the 'No' campaign has been negative and false.  However, I have also noticed that Mr Salmond has fought for his side with just one word - 'scaremongering'.  Everything that the 'Yes' campaign has put forward - from currency to cost of living - has been tarred with that single word.  No suggestion that it might actually be reality!  Even in this evening's interview, he was insisting that the rest of the current UK would go into a currency union, and that a separate Scotland would keep the pound sterling!  I believe that the correct psychiatric term is 'denial'!  Even if the leaders of the two main Westminster political parties (I totally discount the LibDums as a major force in British politics, and fully expect them to all but disappear at next year's General Election!) were to realise the error of their ways, and go along with Mr Salmond's conviction (which may well be correct!) that a formal union would be in the best interest of both a separate Scotland and the remainder of the UK as we still know it, the electorate outwith Scotland have made clear their disapproval of any such accommodation!  And Mr Salmond talked, this evening, about the 'mandate' of the Scottish people for such a union!  I honestly cannot see any of the Westminster politicians putting their own positions in jeopardy just to please "oor Alex"!

The ultimate choice, it seems to me, is the uncertainty that would continue within the UK - because the future is always uncertain; or the uncertainty of following the 'Braveheart' rhetoric of Mr Salmond.  I know which option I find less worrying!

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am no fan of David Cameron.  I have seen more backbone in a jellyfish, and his kowtowing to minority groups - from homosexuals to Muslims - is, I believe, an affront to most of the British population. However, I did agree with one of his most recent statements.  I have constantly insisted that this referendum is not about 'independence', but separation.  However, I have come to realise that I have been wrong!  Separation allows for re-union. This vote, if it is a 'Yes', will be a divorce.  It will be a divorce that is full, final, and irrevocable.  If Scotland votes, on Thursday, to leave the United Kingdom, then it will never - and that means 'not ever' - be able to return to the fold.

It is my prayer that the period following the declaration of the result which, regardless of the outcome, is going to disappoint a great many people, will be a time of peace and reconciliation.  As a disciple of Jesus, I am convinced of the sovereignty of Father God and I believe that He is still in control.  I don't know what the future holds - but I know Who holds the future!

One week today!

One week today, an unusually large number of the residents of Scotland will go to the polls to vote in what is popularly known as the "Independence" referendum but that is, in reality, the "Separation" referendum.  By Friday 19th September, the newspaper polls will all have become redundant, and irrelevant, because the people will have spoken, and their voice will have been heard!

The 'Yes' campaign have had a number of planks in their platform that have been, in my opinion, disingenuously deceptive.  Regretfully, a number of people have accepted the word of politicians (a dangerous thing to do, whichever side one supports!), and either plan to vote 'Yes', or have already done so by a postal vote.  What follows is of no interest, or value, to the latter group.  However, I trust that it will cause some of the former group to reconsider their position over the next seven days.

One of the major issues, it seems to me, has been that of the NHS.  The cry has gone up from Mr Salmond, and others, that if the result of the referendum is that we do not separate from our fellow-Britons, then the NHS in Scotland will be gradually privatised (and the 'Yes' campaign have consistently criticised what they have perceived as the 'fear' tactics of the 'No' campaign!).  The pros and cons of NHS privatisation is a totally different topic, but what surely ought to be made clear is that, under the terms of the Scotland Act (1998)  the NHS is a devolved matter.  This means that it is, and has been, the responsibility of the Scottish Executive/Government for many years.  It also means that it will continue to be so.  Sorry, Alex - that one doesn't work!

The currency that would be used in a separate Scotland has also been an issue that has dogged the 'Yes' campaign.  The current Chancellor of the Exchequer has, vehemently and consistently, ruled out any form of currency union with the remainder of the current UK.  The Shadow Chancellor has agreed wholeheartedly with that stance.  Even the wee LibDums (who are no longer the 'third major party', and who may disappear after the next UK General Election!) have said that they would not be a part of any such union.  The Governor of the Bank of England who, according to Mr Salmond, "is in charge", has clearly stated that "a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty."  This, of course, does not effect only the currency with which I pay for my messages in ASDA.  It also effects matters such as international trade; pensions (very important to some of us already, and to all of us eventually!); the banking sector.   We have already seen, on the back of a single poll that indicated that the 'Yes' campaign had overtaken their rivals, a fall in the value of sterling, and a fall in the stock market!  And that was just one poll!  The only person who regularly assures us that, when the 'Yes' vote succeeds, everyone else will fall in with his way of thinking is - Mr Salmond.  I am reminded of the old story (too old for some of my readers to have known!) that ends with the line "They're a' oot o' step, but oor Jock"!  Sorry, Alex - that one doesn't work either!

Just one other issue for now - the European Union.  The declared opinion of a number of high-ranking officials in the EU is that a separated Scotland would cease to be a part of that body, and would be required to apply for membership - a process that could take many years.  The opinion of Mr Salmond and the 'Yes' campaign is that the EU would be so desperate to have a separate Scotland as a member, that it would be little more than a 'rubber-stamping' job!  I seem to recall 'expert legal opinion' to support that notion - but opinion that remained, and remains, anonymous!  The SNP spokesman on BBC Radio 4, yesterday, claimed that no-one in Scotland was interested in leaving the EU.  I suppose that that is why we now have a Scottish MEP - from UKIP!  Of course, if the whole of the UK is allowed its referendum on membership of the EU and, as is expected, comes out of that discredited body, then there is unlikely to be an EU for a separate Scotland to join!  When one domino falls, others have a habit of following suit - and there is no shortage of countries who would gladly be the second to leave!  Is it indicative of the state of the SNP, in particular, that they would even wish - in an 'independent' Utopia - to be a continuing part of an organisation that hasn't even been able to satisfy its own auditors for many, many years?   Sorry, Alex - that's a third strike!

I don't like my posts to be overly long.  However, there is one issue that I have not heard raised at all, but that concerns me greatly.  No, it has nothing to do with the place of the Christian faith in this new. separate, Scotland - although that is something about which many are, indeed (and rightly), concerned.  This issue is much more politically practical.  As those who know me well are aware, I currently spend a lot of my time in France, and also travel, as occasion demands, to Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and other countries.  With me, I always carry a number of important documents.  One of these is my (UK) passport.  Having that passport means that if, for whatever reason, I am in trouble, I have access to the British Embassy, or a local Consulate, to receive assistance.  Will those officials be willing to help a foreigner - as I would officially be if I belonged to a separated Scotland?   I suspect not!  The alternative would be to go to the Scottish Embassy/Consulate.  However, I have heard no-one mention the cost of such the large number of properties that would have to be acquired for those purposes.  Other countries may be willing to act on Scotland's behalf, but the assistance would be minimal - and there would undoubtedly be a cost involved!  The other item is a little card named the EHIC - that assures me state healthcare at a reduced cost or sometimes for free, anywhere in the EU and Switzerland.  This is all, as far as I know, because of a mutual agreement with these countries.  How long would it take a separated Scottish government to put all of that in place - especially in countries like France, Spain, and Italy where a separatist movement is a thorn in the flesh of the respective governments?  

It is my hope - yes, and my prayer - that common sense, and pragmatism, will prevail over an emotional, albeit laudable, desire to "dae oor ain thing"!   The Bible, even if not accepted by all as being of divine origin, is usually recognised as having many wise words.  I close with one reference: "... 'though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him. A threefold cord is not quickly broken." (Eccl. 4:12).  Let us not break up a country that is, of course, far from perfect, but that is still looked up to by many.  Let us put our energies, not into separating, but into improving.

You know it makes sense!

Thar's a referendum a-comin'!

Apologies for the headline!  Oh, and I know that, before the Referendum on Scottish Independence (or, better, Separation) there are elections to the somewhat impotent European Parliament.  However, it was the Referendum on which the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and N.Ireland was pontificating today.

I watched the report of his speech on the early-evening television news bulletin.  If Scotland's residents vote 'No', we were informed, the LibDems would guarantee greater devolution.  I was glad that it wasn't breakfast-time - I would have been in danger of choking on my porridge!

The current likelihood of the LibDums (no, that wasn't a typo!) having any say about anything after next year's General Election are slightly less than the likelihood of me succeeding Barack Obama (yes, I know that I might do a better job - but I wasn't born in the USoA, and that is a major requirement for candidates!).  However, even if they were leading in all of the polls, for Mr Clegg to make such a promise is about as helpful, and meaningful, as him guaranteeing that there will be two blue moons in the sky on every Wednesday night between now and the end of the century.  In other words, his guarantees aren't worth the paper on which his speech-writer had written the words.

However, if Mr Clegg's words were pointless, those of the Deputy First Minister were no better.  She, if I recall accurately, accused Mr Clegg of making promises he can't fulfil!  Sorry, Nicola, but what is the 'Yes' campaign doing?  "We will have the pound sterling, because Alex Salmond says it will be better for everyone if we do."  He may even be correct in that assessment.  The problem is that it's a UK ball, and the rest of the UK don't want us to share it!  "We will have an automatic entry to the EU."  Not according to most of the EU pundits, who insist that a separated Scotland will have to make a formal application - and, if successful, would be anything but independent! 

The only concrete thing that came out of the report was further confirmation, if any is needed, that one can tell that a politician is lying simply by noting that the lips are moving.

Of course, it is pre-election time!

Marriage - there's no getting away from it!

Having just read that SNP leader, Alex Salmond, has publicly given his personal backing to the introduction of full homosexual/lesbian (let's call a spade 'a spade', and not 'a manually-operated agricultural digging implement') marriage, I am astounded by the reported words of Tim Hopkins, director of the Equality Network: “We very much welcome Alex Salmond’s personal position on the issue. Whoever wins the election, we look forward to a consultation and then legislation.”

Let me read that again!   "... we look forward to a consultation and then legislation.”   This gives me the impression that this "Equality Network" or, at least, its director, has already decided what the outcome of the consultation will be!!  That, I would suggest, does smack of more than a little arrogance.

Of course - and at the risk of "Anonymous" (see Comments under my post on Good Friday) seeing me as even more of a "homophobic" "bigot" than he already thinks that I am - this is the sort of attitude that this (small) section of the population seems to be increasingly displaying.  This is why they, either individually or in their lobby groups (and, it seems, with the financial support of the British taxpayer through the involvement - always in support of those who insist on living out this perverse and unproductive lifestyle - of the government-funded EHRC) appear to think that the Christian community, on whose beliefs this nation was founded, are 'easy meat' for legal action, sometimes on the flimsiest of grounds and, indeed, sometimes appearing very much like entrapment.

Mr Salmond is, of course, as is every other individual, entitled to his personal point of view.  However, as the article suggests, he may have done his party a great dis-service as there may be many who, in the light of his statement, will be reconsidering their support for the SNP at the forthcoming elections to the Scottish Parliament.

It's easy to spend other people's money!

I am no enemy of the Scottish National Party.  In previous elections, I have occasionally supported them with my vote, and believe that, given the constraints that are automatically laid upon a minority government, they have performed well during their four years in office.  Indeed, as I look at the possible alternatives (another LibLab coalition!), I sincerely hope that they gain sufficient seats on May 5th to be able to form a strong government for the next five years.

However, I don't believe that the party has done itself any good with the reported spending of more than £53,000 of taxpayers' (and, even with a very modest pension, I am still included in that group!) money, by endeavouring to block a Freedom of Information request regarding financial details of the party's local income tax policy - intended to be an alternative to Council Tax.  It is reported in today's Herald newspaper that Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, incurred the bulk of the legal costs after the Government attempted to take him to court - arguing  that the original FOI request was invalid, and that Mr Dunion did not have a right to view the documents.

The First Minister, Alex Salmond, eventually moved away from the court threat, after which the commissioner backed the newspaper and ordered disclosure of the information.  However, as if all of that wasn't bad enough, the newspaper also reports that it was confirmed, last week, that the Scottish Government intends to dispute this decision in the Court of Session - leading to further expense for the hard-pressed taxpayer!

Perhaps, in such cases, when it is a particular Party's policies that are involved, it should be the responsibility of the Party to meet any costs.  As it is, there appears to be a bottomless crock from which governments, and political parties, and politicians, have granted themselves the right to withdraw any required (whether, or not, genuinely necessary!) funds.  I, and my fellow-taxpayers, keep the crock filled up - the politicians empty it.

Aye, it's easy to spend other people's money - but is it always morally defensible?