This is our second podcast – the idea behind this one is to provide Christian comment on the news of the past week. This week we talk about Gaza, Ukraine, Scottish Independence Referendum, the US doctor healed from Ebola, Richard Dawkins and aborting children with Downs syndrome, soccer moms suing FIFA and the ice bucket challenge! Should be enough there for all of us….we also provide lots of links for you to follow up! Enjoy and pass on….
David, I don’t know why you’re surprised that the ‘independence’ referendum has sparked so much division and bitterness.
You must know that in countries that have successfully sought ‘independence’, it has had the consent and desire of a huge majority of the country – 80-90%. A list can be found here – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_referendum The majority of these have the overwhelming support of the nation – in some cases, recording 99% in favour.
This has never been the case in Scotland. Support for ‘independence’ in Scotland has never got very far beyond circa 30%. It has never been a majority view in modern day Scotland. Yet here we are having to have a referendum on the subject to please a minority party, and a lunatic fringe, and a minority position. It is absurd that we shouldn’t even be at this stage.
You assert that Alex Salmond is ‘a clever man’ when there is no evidence to support this. Quite the contrary, in fact. He has stirred up forces that he cannot control and has sowed the dragon’s teeth for trouble in Scotland for years to come.
His lifelong obsession with his goal has left him blind to the practicalities of the matter – hence his inability to answer even basic questions about our country – and completely ignorant of the historical precedents of a stirred up nationalism. Not the actions of a ‘clever man’.
The Christian response should be to seek unification, peace and co-operation with our neighbours. Alex Salmond has chosen a different path.
William – “the Christian response should be to seek unification, peace and co-operation with our neighbours”? Just wondering if you would say that to the Ukrainian church?! And if a majority don’t vote for independence we won’t get it….but if they do, we will. That sounds like democracy to me!
Ukraine has been invaded by Russia. We have not been invaded. The comparison is absurd.
The problem will be, as I said, that a significant number of people, regardless of the result, will feel strong resentment and may even feel they’ve been led up the garden path. There was no democratic mandate for the SNP to split our nation like this. They had no right but the genie will not go back in the bottle now.
No the comparison is strong, William. Should Russians have a right to vote on Ukrainian independence? Should the English have a right to vote on Scottish independence (yes – but only if they live in Scotland!).
You say there was no democratic mandate for the SNP to have this referendum. THey were elected in 2011 on a manifesto which promised a referendum with a clear majority, beating a system which was designed to prevent any one party being elected. It was a stunning victory and about as clear a mandate as you could get!
Reblogged this on Pickering Post and commented:
Worth a listen
You seem to be arguing two different points. First of all, you ask if the Ukranian church should seek ‘peace, unity and co-operation’ with its neighbours. I’m sure the Ukranian church would prefer this but they are dealing with a belligerent, militarily strong neighbour that has invaded them and killed their people. There is no comparison with the peaceful relations Scotland has with England, Wales and NI and which it should seek to maintain. In response, you make another point about Russians voting in Ukraine which seems to have no relevance to anything.
You do ask if English voters should have been allowed to vote on Scottish independence. You will know that Salmond’s original position was that Scottish ‘independence’ would have no impact on the rest of the UK so, therefore, they had no need to vote. He now has an ever-changing position on currency, the EU and other international memberships and obligations that the UK has. For example, he and other Nationalists will argue that the UK will lose its EU membership if Scotland votes for ‘independence’ because the UK would cease to exist. This is legally dubious, to say the least, but if we follow it to its logical conclusion then we can see that the rest of the UK should have had a vote in this referendum if their international memberships, treaties and obligations were going to be affected. However, this would require Salmond and other Nationalists to be intellectually honest but they are not.
There is no democratic mandate. Less than half of those who voted did so for the SNP. This gives them a majority in the chamber but this is not the same thing as saying they had the democratic will of the people to launch a referendum on this highly divisive issue. There is no overwhelming support for ‘independence’ and no opinion poll has ever offered a majority for Scottish ‘independence’. A responsible, sensible party would not have launched into this referendum on the basis of being elected to legislate on devolved powers in Edinburgh. Again, for someone who professes to be interested in history, you seem to be ignoring the precedents for nations that have actually vote for ‘independence’.
Salmonds original position was NEVER that Scottish independence would have no impact on England. I find it incredible that you think that 50 million English should be allowed to vote on Scottish independence. As for no democratic mandate – getting a clear majority in a parliament designed to prevent that is more than enough. The hyperbole you employ would mean that no British government since the war would have had a democratic mandate. As for hsitorical precedents can you tell me how many countries have voted for independence and then wanted to get rid of it?!