Welcome
Welcome to the Scottish Christian Party website. We appreciate feedback. Please let us know about any broken links, your comments on what you would like to see, and which issues you feel we should highlight. Click .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
What does the Scottish Christian Party stand for?
These news items include comment from the Christian Party perspective.
The Big Debate
The Big Debate on BBC Scotland 25/1/2012 was a big flop.
This was the first of several debates on the Scottish Independence referendum. It bodes ill for the following debates that this one was a squabble.
Will presenter Glenn Campbell learn from David Dimblebey who sits in the middle of the panel in Question Time so that he can see his audience? Glenn Campbell stood to one side of the stage, facing the panel, and therefore about half of the 200 members of the audience who wanted to participate in the debate were hardly involved as he spent half his time with them behind his shoulder. He told one member of the audience who asked a question about publishing legal advice that he would put it to Nicola Sturgeon, and completely forgot about it.
The best speaker was the writer and broadcaster Lesley Riddoch, outclassing the three politicians, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, Scottish Labour leader Joanne Lamont and Lord Wallace the Advocate General of Scotland.
David McLetchie opposed to redefining marriage
The former leader of the Scottish Tories opposes the change in the definition of marriage.
Homosexual activists are targetting MSPs and have highlighted David McLetchie’s opposition to their plans.
The homosexual Pink Paper states that “Equal Marriage was a manifesto commitment of the ruling SNP administration”. The wish is the father of the thought. Rather, the SNP Manifesto pledges to have a consultation on the subject: “We recognise the range of views on the questions of same-sex marriage and registration of civil partnership. We will therefore begin a process of consultation and discussion on these issues.”
In stating his case, Mr McLetchie said: “I welcome the establishment of civil partnerships in Scotland”, and goes on to argue that there is no need to change the definition of marriage. This emerging line of reasoning will not hold the line when it comes to the debate. First, everyone knows this, but it has not prevented this campaign which has the support of all the major parties. It will be interesting to see what line the new Scottish leader will take. The SCP has already pointed out that the Scottish Tories have been neutered on this subject by David Cameron’s gagging order, and Ruth Davidson is Cameron’s acolyte.
Secondly, the SCP submission has pointed out that “civil partnership is a misnomer; the proper term is homosexual partnership. A true civil partnership would not define the partnership by sexuality.” The SCP has argued for proper equality instead of the current inequality favouring one group.
Redefining of our language is impoverishing our language. People find that they can no longer use certain words according to their former meaning because they have been adopted or ostracised by the aggressive homosexual lobby. If politicians try to redefine marriage, they are attempting more than they are capable.
As far as we know, the Scottish Christian Party is the only political party in Scotland which is opposing the defining of marriage. UKIP, the BNP and other minor parties which don’t feature strongly in Scottish politics are undeclared on the issues that matter.
We want clarity
It is time for Alex Salmond to come clean on what he means by Independence for Scotland.
By concentrating on process, Alex Salmond’s brand of grudge and grievance politics has obscured what his vision for Scotland is. It is questionable whether his vision squares with most patriotic Scots.
He wants to join the euro, and his current attitude to retain the pound is simply expediency and pragmatism. We will have no more control of the pound than of the euro, putting us into a worse position than at present.
He wants to be a member of the EU - so Independence from Scotland means he wants to exchange union with England for union with Europe. Why is one any more patriotic than the other? The problems of the EU are well known.
His vision has been proven faulty on a number of points, so why should his vision for Scotland not prove to be a nightmare?
His economic vision of small, tiger, independent nations made use of Ireland and Iceland as models - until the wheels fell off their wagons and we don’t hear this any more.
Something similar happened when he pointed to the Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Scotland as model businesses for Scotland’s economic future.
His economic forward planning depends on an oil price that is questionable.
His plan for Scotland’s energy to be supplied 100% by renewables by 2020 is pie in the sky. He hopes to sell energy to England although the transmission line between Scotland and England is already full and there is no more capacity to export electricity. Further, if England builds more nuclear power stations, it won’t need Scotland’s electricity.
His plans for Scotland’s defence are unreal: he is against nuclear power and nuclear submarines, and what will be the effect upon our armed forces and various bases?
Most patriotic Scots do not want to be hidebound to Europe, and if Alex Salmond and the SNP offer us only this form of nationalism, the Scottish Christian Party will have none of it.
Alex Salmond proudly tells us Scotland can stand on its own two feet. We believe that. So why is he substituting Europe for England? This does not sound like a man who is confident that Scotland can stand on its own two feet.
It is not enough to say that Scots can decide these matters after Independence. The point is whether Alex Salmond can give us a clear view of his own vision, or does he not have one?
Related Stories
