08/08/2011 Newsnight Scotland


08/08/2011

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 08/08/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

On tonight's programme, would churches ever be forced to marry

:00:11.:00:14.

gay couples even if they didn't want to? That's the fear from one

:00:14.:00:18.

prominent politician. Is he right? Why did the Ministry of Defence

:00:18.:00:25.

choose to close Leuchars instead of Lossiemouth? With claims of a

:00:25.:00:28.

backroom deal, one MP is demanding an inquiry.

:00:28.:00:31.

Could a church, which doesn't support same sex relationships, be

:00:31.:00:34.

forced to allow two gay people to get married? That's the prospect

:00:34.:00:38.

the SNP MSP John Mason wants to avoid. He has lodged a

:00:38.:00:40.

controversial motion at Holyrood which has been described as "nasty"

:00:41.:00:43.

and "anti-gay marriage" - those were the views of a party colleague,

:00:44.:00:47.

by the way. Mr Mason's intervention comes ahead of an expected

:00:47.:00:49.

consultation on same sex relationships by the Scottish

:00:49.:00:55.

government. So who is closer to public opinion on this issue - Mr

:00:55.:01:02.

Mason or his critics. Julie Peacock reports.

:01:02.:01:05.

Taking the next step. Civil partnerships for gay couples have

:01:05.:01:10.

been illegal since 2005, but the same cannot be said for same-sex

:01:10.:01:14.

marriages. It is something the Government is looking into, but one

:01:14.:01:18.

MSP has raised concerns that if there is a change in the law,

:01:18.:01:22.

individuals of religious organisations may be legally forced

:01:22.:01:26.

to marry same-sex couples even where it is against their beliefs.

:01:26.:01:32.

It is caused debate among step SNP, but their leader says it is bound

:01:32.:01:36.

individuals to make a decision. do not understand the difficulty.

:01:36.:01:39.

This is clearly an issue of conscience which is not something

:01:39.:01:44.

you did a party were born. The Government will declare its

:01:44.:01:47.

position and we have a consultation document coming out in a few weeks'

:01:47.:01:53.

time. That is the best way in a matter such as this - to engage in

:01:53.:01:57.

a debate and then come to a consultation not as a political

:01:57.:02:01.

party that has a Parliament. John Mason's motion has angered Alan

:02:01.:02:11.
:02:11.:02:21.

As things stand at the moment, it is down to individual priests and

:02:21.:02:25.

ministers who gets to decide who gets their wedding photographs

:02:25.:02:29.

taken on the steps. The Catholic Church will not marry divorcees and

:02:29.:02:33.

some ministers will not marry members of their congregation, so

:02:33.:02:39.

the idea of rules for the marriage is just an extension of that. They

:02:39.:02:46.

are few who think that is an unreasonable compromise. In John

:02:46.:02:50.

Mason's back garden Shettleston, no one these but who thought it would

:02:50.:02:58.

cause any major problems. You can deprive them if you wanted yourself.

:02:58.:03:04.

Why should they refused? They didn't refuse them to live outside

:03:04.:03:08.

of wedlock, and they're still baptising the children when people

:03:08.:03:13.

and married, so what is the difference? Reverend MoD Robertson

:03:13.:03:15.

from the Unitarian Church his campaign to make same-sex marriages

:03:15.:03:19.

legal, but she doesn't think forcing people the conduct them is

:03:19.:03:29.
:03:29.:03:32.

what anyone wants to stop -- anyone wants. I fully accept that there

:03:32.:03:37.

are people who, for genuine religious reasons, feel that they

:03:37.:03:40.

cannot and would not beat and a position to officiate at a same-sex

:03:40.:03:46.

marriage, and therefore I think it would be important that there is a

:03:46.:03:50.

conscience clause within any legislation for same-sex marriage.

:03:50.:03:54.

That there would be no legal red percussion for anybody who, for

:03:55.:04:02.

religious reasons, wanted out of it. The question is, would any couple

:04:02.:04:05.

want to be married by a celebrant who basically does not approve of

:04:05.:04:12.

their relationship? They probably would not want to be married.

:04:12.:04:15.

Henderson has been campaigning for same-sex marriage in Scotland. He

:04:16.:04:19.

says that John Mason's motion is unnecessary, because everyone

:04:19.:04:23.

involved in the debate already except the right to opt out.

:04:23.:04:26.

not sure what he's trying to get that. It has been the position of

:04:26.:04:31.

everybody involved in this debate that there has to be a religious

:04:31.:04:34.

opt-outs for those in various churches to do not want to conduct

:04:34.:04:40.

those, because nobody should be forced if they do not want it. It

:04:40.:04:46.

is really important that those religions and face and all

:04:46.:04:50.

religious groups who want to conduct same-sex marriages are

:04:50.:04:55.

allowed to do so. What about the allegation that refusing to manage

:04:55.:05:02.

a gay couple could be construed is discrimination? Even in terms of

:05:02.:05:05.

European human rights physician, a balance has to be struck between

:05:05.:05:08.

the rates of the individuals who want to be married and the rights

:05:08.:05:13.

and religious bodies to carry out the marriage. We need to bear in

:05:13.:05:16.

mind that carrying out a marriage is not just a public service, it is

:05:16.:05:20.

a religious service, so there has to be a balance between the rights

:05:20.:05:25.

of the religious celebrant as against the rights of the parties.

:05:25.:05:29.

From a legal point of view, a compromise has to be struck.

:05:29.:05:32.

Compromise is after all said to be the key to a successful marriage.

:05:32.:05:35.

Will that be something the politicians remember when the

:05:35.:05:41.

debate the issue later this year. With me here is the SNP MSP John

:05:41.:05:46.

Mason, and in Edinburgh is the Green MSP Alison Johnstone. Thank

:05:46.:05:52.

you both. John Mason, this is a completely pointless motion, isn't

:05:52.:05:58.

it? No one is arguing that charges are anyone else should be forced to

:05:58.:06:04.

marry gay couples? There is a certain concern or fear amongst

:06:04.:06:06.

certain churches and religious organisations that that could be a

:06:06.:06:12.

consequence. I am reassured by what people said in your film club, but

:06:12.:06:17.

some churches are scared that if judges are permitted to carry it

:06:17.:06:22.

same-sex marriage, and some do and some don't, it would only take one

:06:22.:06:25.

couple to go to a church that did not want to do it and claim that

:06:26.:06:30.

they had been discriminated against. If we can ensure that this is in

:06:30.:06:35.

place, I am relaxed about it. would you dixit? Would you like to

:06:35.:06:38.

see legislation, and we don't of there will be any? What would you

:06:39.:06:42.

like to see happen to ensure that that scenario does not develop?

:06:42.:06:46.

Right now, I want to get a debate going and I am delighted that has

:06:46.:06:50.

happened. Hopley, at this stage of consultation and the full bill,

:06:50.:06:57.

which I hope will come, then it there will be a really inform

:06:57.:07:02.

debate about these issues. There are also issues - such as the a

:07:02.:07:06.

quality act - and we're talking about some kind of same-sex

:07:06.:07:10.

marriage Act here in Scotland. How would that two of those compete in

:07:10.:07:14.

court? Then there are Christian groups, who fear that when the

:07:14.:07:21.

courts get hold of religion, they did it at the bottom of the pale.

:07:21.:07:24.

Do you approve personally of the changes which have already taken

:07:24.:07:29.

place in Scotland, which allow civil partnerships? Do you, on

:07:29.:07:33.

personal religious grounds, disapprove? I am very relaxed about

:07:33.:07:39.

what has happened and about most of what might happen. Does relaxed

:07:39.:07:43.

been a rule? Were relaxed means they want a society were lots of

:07:43.:07:46.

different minority groups can co- exist with each other, and we do

:07:46.:07:51.

not always agree with each other... Are all those groups before? A they

:07:51.:07:56.

absolutely must be. Every person must be equal. Then why don't gay

:07:56.:07:59.

people have an equal right to manage? I think they should have. I

:07:59.:08:04.

am happy about that. Nor concern whatsoever about the concept of gay

:08:04.:08:09.

marriage? I think the judges have been guilty about eating minorities

:08:09.:08:15.

badly for centuries, and I am happy to accept that. What they want to

:08:15.:08:19.

do is get rid of that and create a society where we are really go. The

:08:19.:08:23.

fear of many churches is that it will switch the other way and other

:08:23.:08:27.

groups will put pressure on the churches. Alison Johnstone, that is

:08:27.:08:33.

very reasonable? It sounds very reasonable indeed. I am reassured

:08:33.:08:39.

by John's reassurance, and I personally believe his motion was

:08:39.:08:43.

not strictly necessary, but it has ensured that we start debating this

:08:43.:08:50.

now. This proposal will only affect those who wish to have a gay

:08:50.:08:54.

marriage, and it will not affect those who do not. John is very

:08:54.:08:58.

concerned, his motion is concerned with involving people who do not

:08:58.:09:03.

approve of gay marriage, and that simply won't happen. What would you

:09:03.:09:07.

like to see happen if there is legislation? It is only at the

:09:07.:09:11.

level of a consultation, having a look at this, and we don't offered

:09:11.:09:15.

will come forward. What would you like to see happen? The fact that

:09:16.:09:19.

the members of the Scottish Youth Parliament with their lovely

:09:19.:09:25.

Quiller campaign, they consulted many people in this was the one

:09:25.:09:30.

issue they wanted to see debated. I think this shows what a great

:09:30.:09:32.

includes of country we have good potential to become. I think we

:09:33.:09:36.

should do all we can to embrace that intake that agenda forward. I

:09:36.:09:40.

have no doubt that in a modern and tolerance Scotland, at any

:09:40.:09:44.

consultation we have or reflect the fact that 50% of people in the last

:09:44.:09:49.

survey supported this proposal. What difference would it make to

:09:49.:09:52.

allow same-sex couples to get married, rather than have a civil

:09:52.:09:57.

partnership? I civil partnership confers many if not all of the same

:09:57.:10:02.

right, doesn't it? Just say you're the mother and father of three

:10:02.:10:06.

children, and perhaps two of those children have the right to get

:10:06.:10:11.

married and the other doesn't. How can that possibly be truly equal?

:10:11.:10:15.

To my mind and that too many hundreds of thousands of other

:10:15.:10:21.

Scots, that is not good enough. We need to look at that sensibly. If

:10:21.:10:25.

we are looking up to a quality, we have to look at the quality for all.

:10:25.:10:29.

Is this taking the quality too far? You're essentially arguing about a

:10:29.:10:33.

label, not different rights and responsibilities. I don't think

:10:33.:10:37.

this is simply a label at all. Marriage is about the celebration,

:10:38.:10:42.

a recognition under declaration at of your love and commitment to

:10:42.:10:47.

another person. Why should that depend on the person's gender? I do

:10:47.:10:57.
:10:57.:11:01.

not see it is just a label but The debate has happened, not least

:11:01.:11:06.

within your own party. Does some of the reaction you've had, does that

:11:06.:11:13.

add to your fear those who don't share the believes might -- beliefs

:11:13.:11:17.

might feel they are being persecuted? You have people feeling

:11:18.:11:23.

persecuted on both sides. I think it would have been wrong in the --

:11:23.:11:25.

if the Scottish Parliament had drifted through this and because it

:11:25.:11:29.

was a difficult issue to raise, then nobody wanted to raise it. I

:11:29.:11:34.

think the public expect us, both the SNP, as the majority party, and

:11:34.:11:38.

the Scottish Parliament, to really debate these issues. They want to

:11:38.:11:42.

see the arguments put forward. strong is the SNP commitment? You

:11:42.:11:47.

look at the manifesto. It says, we'll have a consultation, we will

:11:47.:11:52.

discuss this. We recognise there are a variety of views. There is

:11:52.:11:58.

not one commitment. Alex Salmond's point was correct. This is a matter

:11:58.:12:02.

of conscience. Human rights are there as well. There will be a

:12:02.:12:05.

variety of opinion. The Scottish National Party is now the National

:12:05.:12:08.

Party of Scotland. We have a wide, wide range of people within that

:12:08.:12:12.

party. It's the majority. So what the party decides and thinks is

:12:13.:12:16.

really, really important for Scotland. How many share your

:12:16.:12:22.

concerns? I think a few probably to. I think other people maybe share

:12:22.:12:27.

concerns, people can be nervous about signing motions. I am not

:12:27.:12:35.

worried about the number I get. I've had some critical E mays and

:12:35.:12:39.

some on Facebook and some saying I was not going far enough. You say

:12:39.:12:43.

you have been reassured by what John Mason has said. How do you

:12:43.:12:47.

feel this debate will go forward? Do you think he's on the side of a

:12:47.:12:51.

majority of people in Scotland or the minority? As I mentioned

:12:51.:12:56.

earlier, 58% of people in the 2010 survey suggested they would back

:12:56.:13:02.

the proposal of gay marriage. I would be more reassured if John

:13:02.:13:06.

could issue a that if his concerns are addressed and he is assured

:13:06.:13:09.

that gay marriage will not involve those who wish to be involved that

:13:09.:13:14.

he will vote for this proposal. answer to that? I will have to wait

:13:14.:13:20.

and see the bill. I am in the 58% as well. I really, really have to

:13:20.:13:24.

look at these promises. That is a clear challenge. Nobody is going to

:13:24.:13:28.

be forced and your motion is all about forcing people. Nobody is

:13:28.:13:37.

forced to approve of same-sex relationships. There'll be more

:13:37.:13:41.

issues rized in the consultations.Vy tried to raise one

:13:41.:13:44.

-- raised in the consultation. I have tried to raise one point. We

:13:44.:13:47.

will look at them and see what everybody is saying on the

:13:47.:13:51.

consultation side of things. Thank you both very much indeed for your

:13:51.:13:58.

time this evening. What was behind the decision to close RAF Leuchars

:13:58.:14:05.

while keeping RAF Lossiemouth open. The local MP for Leuchars, Sir

:14:05.:14:10.

Alastair Campbell, suggested it had more to do with the -- Sir mensy

:14:11.:14:16.

Campbell said it had more to do with the strategy. The decision for

:14:16.:14:20.

the RAF to leave Leuchars and end 70 years of flying from the base

:14:20.:14:27.

came as a shock to the local community. Sir mingkam bell has

:14:27.:14:33.

made no se -- Ming Campbell has made no secret. He accused Danny

:14:33.:14:41.

Alexander of using his position in the Treasury to lob bion behalf of

:14:41.:14:47.

RAF losssy -- lobby on behalf of RAF Lossiemouth. He told the Times

:14:47.:14:57.
:14:57.:15:08.

The Treasury responded, emphasising it was the Minnesota which took the

:15:08.:15:13.

final decision. -- the Ministry of Defence which

:15:13.:15:23.
:15:23.:15:33.

It's that argument about economic impact which is the bone of

:15:33.:15:38.

contention. Campaign groups argued if RAF Lossiemouth closed so soon,

:15:38.:15:43.

the impact on the local community would have been devastating. There

:15:43.:15:46.

are concerns that Leuchars could lie empty for up to two years

:15:46.:15:52.

before it is turned into an army base. What impact will that have on

:15:52.:15:55.

their community? The Labour MP Thomas Docherty has writ on the the

:15:55.:16:03.

permanent secretary, asking her to investigate Sir ming's claims. The

:16:03.:16:08.

MP Mr Docherty joins us now. Why do you want an investigation? These

:16:08.:16:11.

are incredibly serious accusations made by one of the most senior

:16:11.:16:15.

members of the House of Commons, a figure respected on all sides for

:16:15.:16:19.

his knowledge of the defence and foreign affairs field. It is right

:16:19.:16:22.

than rather than have them hanging up in the air over the Government's

:16:22.:16:27.

decision, that we have a thorough investigation into these very

:16:27.:16:31.

serious accusations. If what you are suggesting actually happened

:16:31.:16:38.

and Danny Alexander, as a Highland MP, was advocating for a base in

:16:38.:16:45.

the north of Scotland thark would be a natural thing to do, wouldn't

:16:45.:16:49.

it? It would be for any who has an interest to champion their cause.

:16:49.:16:57.

My understanding of what Ming has suggested, has alleged, is that the

:16:57.:16:59.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury used the fact that he has the purse

:16:59.:17:04.

strings for the Ministry of Defence to force the MoD to make a decision,

:17:04.:17:07.

that perhaps was not correct. I think what we are seeing as well is,

:17:07.:17:12.

and this is a Defence Review, we didn't begin with much credibility,

:17:12.:17:16.

it is running out of credibility with every passing day. That is why

:17:16.:17:21.

we need this independent investigation. As your call for an

:17:21.:17:26.

investigation based on the reported comments of Sir Menzies Campbell,

:17:26.:17:30.

but you have no evidence yourself? There are concerns that we on the

:17:30.:17:34.

defence committee have about the way the process has been done. Ming

:17:34.:17:38.

has made a specific allegation that the Treasury intervened on the

:17:38.:17:43.

Ministry of Defence to change the decision. That's what we're asking

:17:43.:17:47.

for, asking the permanent secretary to investigate. The defence

:17:47.:17:51.

committee will in the autumn and winter study the review as a

:17:51.:17:57.

process. Ming has made a serious accusation. One that if it stands

:17:57.:18:00.

up will probably see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury leave his

:18:00.:18:06.

job. Isn't there though a perfectly long-standing tradition of senior

:18:06.:18:11.

members of Government advocating quite forcefully for their local

:18:11.:18:19.

communities? After all Rosyth is in Fife? Gordon Brown was credited for

:18:19.:18:24.

getting jobs to that particular base. Didn't this go on with all

:18:24.:18:31.

Governments? Address you say Gordon Brown has been a fantastic champion

:18:31.:18:36.

for the dockyard and Scottish workforce. As Chancellor didn't he

:18:36.:18:41.

hold the purse strings about where aircraft would be built and

:18:41.:18:45.

manufactured? Nobody has accused Gordon or any member of the

:18:45.:18:49.

previous Government of taking work away from one constituency and

:18:49.:18:57.

moving it to another for selfish or political reasons. It's absolutely

:18:57.:19:01.

right that Gordon championed the Scottish industries, but not at the

:19:01.:19:05.

expense of others in the United States. All decisions are made at

:19:05.:19:09.

the expense of another community - if they are not built in one area,

:19:09.:19:13.

they will be built in another area. Isn't Danny Alexander just doing

:19:13.:19:16.

what most Government ministers would do? Well, obviously given the

:19:16.:19:24.

limits of time here I will not start on my usual arguments about

:19:24.:19:28.

the very poor Defence Review we have. Fundamentally, the defence of

:19:28.:19:33.

the realm must come first. Ming is saying he believes that has been

:19:33.:19:36.

compromised and done at the behest of the Chief Secretary to the

:19:37.:19:40.

Treasury. It is right that any member of the Cabinet makes private

:19:40.:19:45.

reputations as a constituency member. What Ming is alleging his

:19:45.:19:48.

colleague did is threaten the Ministry of Defence using his purse

:19:48.:19:53.

strings. OK, thank you very much indeed for your time. Let's look

:19:53.:19:59.

now at tomorrow's newspaper now at tomorrow's newspaper

:19:59.:20:04.

headlines. We begin with the Times. The news agenda has been dominated

:20:04.:20:10.

by the riots in London. On to the Daily Telegraph "rule of the mob."

:20:10.:20:14.

The picture of a burning vehicle and a young man walking across the

:20:14.:20:19.

centre of that shot. The guardian has "the battle for London." Again

:20:19.:20:27.

more shots of the trouble in the capital city. The Independent, "Mob

:20:27.:20:35.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS