:00:17. > :00:22.The SNP's long-standing policy of staying out of NATO is to be
:00:22. > :00:27.updated. The party conference had been asked to go changed in a
:00:27. > :00:36.policy of independence. Also tonight, why is the debate over
:00:36. > :00:42.same-sex marriage angry? As this programme predicted, the SNP will
:00:42. > :00:52.debate NATO after independence as long as Trident is removed. That
:00:52. > :00:52.
:00:52. > :00:59.seems to be the substance of the The traditionalist MP view of the
:00:59. > :01:04.defence has been to have a Scotland free of nuclear weapons and
:01:04. > :01:07.involvement with NATO. There was great interest in the suggestion
:01:07. > :01:14.that leading nationalist politicians were planning a change
:01:14. > :01:18.in party policy to allow them to remain within NATO. That never got
:01:18. > :01:27.to the council but today has confirmed that it will be debated
:01:27. > :01:32.at the national policy conference in September. The motion in the --
:01:32. > :01:42.is saying that they should stick with NATO as long as they remove a
:01:42. > :01:49.
:01:49. > :01:54.Trident and can do is hit. Some Do you accept that in discussing
:01:55. > :02:04.this policy it will be seen as a fundamental betrayal by significant
:02:05. > :02:18.
:02:18. > :02:22.numbers of supporters... I am looking for it to the debate it.
:02:22. > :02:26.The branches and constituency associations will decide on this
:02:26. > :02:31.defence policy and I think To be fair, I know you are concentrating
:02:32. > :02:36.on an aspect of the policy update. It is a detailed proposal and it
:02:36. > :02:46.goes through the reasons why we should be able to make security
:02:46. > :02:57.
:02:57. > :03:03.affairs debated in Scotland. Could a... And what that will mean in
:03:03. > :03:07.terms of a defence in Scotland, it is important to understand that the
:03:07. > :03:11.issue of Treaty relationships with neighbours and friends is part of
:03:11. > :03:16.the update. I think it is a welcome debate to be had because in recent
:03:16. > :03:18.years when I have been travelling around to understand the kind of
:03:19. > :03:24.relationship that they might want to have with an independent
:03:24. > :03:31.Scotland, it has become obvious that working together through
:03:31. > :03:37.treaty organisations is absolutely key for them and we want them to be
:03:37. > :03:42.good advice.... You understand that we have got a big gap in defence
:03:42. > :03:46.policy and you are conceding that in what you say here. The proposals
:03:46. > :03:50.have been made because having spoken to the SNP with a wide
:03:50. > :03:53.ranging review and having spoken to external experts and having
:03:53. > :03:57.travelled around neighbouring countries, it is clear that 10
:03:57. > :04:05.years on from the last policy, we have got areas that do need
:04:05. > :04:12.Updating. We face unprecedented challenges through cyber terrorism.
:04:12. > :04:17.To we do not have a lot of time. Let's focus on NATO. A do you
:04:17. > :04:23.accept that this discussion, whether or not the SNP are in or
:04:23. > :04:27.out on whatever terms, is is not a messy policy discussion? It seems
:04:27. > :04:34.like not just a change but a significant betrayal that he would
:04:34. > :04:39.even discuss it. The you accept that? I do not a thinks so.
:04:39. > :04:44.flexible are your principles? If they say that you cannot stay in
:04:44. > :04:47.unless you keep Trident, what do you say to that? Nuclear weapons
:04:47. > :04:51.had been stationed in other countries with bilateral
:04:51. > :04:55.arrangements between the two countries and it does not involve
:04:56. > :05:01.NATO. That would be the relationship between Scotland and
:05:01. > :05:05.the rest of the United Kingdom. If we look at the history of the few
:05:05. > :05:09.countries that have weapons, this would be the United States and they
:05:10. > :05:14.have been drawn from Canada and Greece. We have got a
:05:14. > :05:18.misunderstanding. What has been proposed is that after independence
:05:18. > :05:23.and the resolution I am proposing would work together with neighbours,
:05:23. > :05:28.friends and allies, on the basis that we would not have nuclear
:05:28. > :05:33.weapons in Scotland. The majority of people do not want Trident in
:05:33. > :05:36.Scotland and neither do I or the SNP. We have got an opportunity to
:05:36. > :05:42.work closely with friends and neighbours and allies and get rid
:05:42. > :05:45.of nuclear weapons and have appropriate defences in Scotland.
:05:45. > :05:51.That is the duty of making decisions in Scotland. That is why
:05:51. > :05:55.we need independence and to be able to set our agenda. Would it be the
:05:55. > :06:01.case that if you did get rid of tridents that he would actually
:06:02. > :06:06.allow vessels from other members in territorial waters? Were should
:06:06. > :06:11.look at the policy of a northern European neighbours in NATO but
:06:11. > :06:15.without nuclear weapons, like Norway. They have made it
:06:15. > :06:19.understood that they did not train forces with nuclear weapons and
:06:19. > :06:23.will not stationed them in the country. They did not want to be
:06:23. > :06:30.part of them and neither do Scotland. We want to work with
:06:30. > :06:35.neighbours and allies. That is what NATO is supposed to be about. That
:06:36. > :06:40.is for us and it is primarily about conventional defence. Co-operating
:06:40. > :06:50.together and watching one another's backs. That is what the neighbours
:06:50. > :06:51.
:06:51. > :06:54.want. We do want to work together It is widely expected that the
:06:54. > :06:59.Scottish Cabinet will discuss what it wants to do about same-sex
:07:00. > :07:06.marriage. Cardinal Keith O'Brien made it clear that he wants a
:07:06. > :07:08.referendum which was rejected by many of his opponents. Both sides
:07:08. > :07:14.are used to extravagant language and generalisations have been
:07:14. > :07:19.flying has brutally as offensive remarks. We will discuss what is
:07:19. > :07:25.debate says about the society but first, we will get updated on the
:07:25. > :07:32.story. It was gay pride in Glasgow on Saturday. A these days it is
:07:33. > :07:36.more like a carnival and a campaigning rally. At gay men and
:07:36. > :07:42.lesbians are fighting for equality, which has been won but they want
:07:42. > :07:47.the abolition of Section 28 and perhaps most crucially, the idea of
:07:47. > :07:53.straightforward prejudice is often considered to be beyond the pale.
:07:53. > :07:59.But campaigners insist that there is more to be done. That same-sex
:07:59. > :08:05.marriage is the current battleground. When we came out
:08:05. > :08:10.initially, I was not for, or against. But what is now happening
:08:11. > :08:14.is the campaign against it. When I was being referred to as a doctor
:08:14. > :08:23.in a field and do better than bestiality and that sort of thing,
:08:23. > :08:28.then I started supporting the Civil partnerships did same-sex
:08:28. > :08:35.couples the same legal rank as heterosexual couples. Some people
:08:35. > :08:39.refer to them as gay weddings. But in law, they are not weddings.
:08:39. > :08:46.they are not the same things as a marriage. It does not have the same
:08:46. > :08:51.respect and the same rights. government insists that the Church
:08:51. > :08:56.will have to conduct same-sex weddings. But this has not calm
:08:56. > :09:00.anxieties, especially in the Roman Catholic Church. One concern is
:09:00. > :09:06.that they could be a situation where they are forced to hold gay
:09:06. > :09:10.weddings. Some groups have been pushing the agenda of quite some
:09:10. > :09:14.time and they have definitely skewed the balance of public
:09:14. > :09:22.opinion. It is time to have a balanced discussion and debate
:09:22. > :09:29.about that reasonably. And then day will see we have to keep this going.
:09:29. > :09:38.We had a variety of views here today. It is the same-sex marriage
:09:38. > :09:42.that I am against in the Catholic Church. I feel that the civil
:09:42. > :09:47.partnerships and the legal rights that they want and the financial
:09:47. > :09:54.rights, and I think that my personal belief is that marriage is
:09:54. > :10:01.a union between a man and a woman. A devout Catholics and activists
:10:01. > :10:05.are a part of diverse society and according to a survey, downright
:10:05. > :10:10.hostility to gay marriage is a minority view. When people were
:10:10. > :10:15.asked its same-sex couples should have the right to marry, 60 %
:10:15. > :10:20.agreed and 19 % disagreed. But other surveys have not had decisive
:10:20. > :10:25.results. We have had progressive governments around the world
:10:25. > :10:32.legalising same-sex marriage. The majority of politicians have fought
:10:32. > :10:37.for this. The modern SNP sees itself as a progressive social
:10:37. > :10:42.democratic party. But in gay weddings, members did not speak as
:10:42. > :10:47.one of. This former leader is a staunch opponent. And at the
:10:47. > :10:52.conference last year a small minority at a fringe debate
:10:52. > :10:58.demonstrated the conviction of some critics. I think that whether the
:10:58. > :11:05.nation goes forward team independence under the SNP will
:11:06. > :11:11.depend on what the SNP does with the best, whether we continue to be
:11:11. > :11:20.blessed by God and able to lead the nation, or whether his blessing
:11:20. > :11:27.will fall from us, if we allowhomosexual marriage as opposed
:11:27. > :11:32.to partnership. -- allowhomosexual marriage. Thousands of people
:11:32. > :11:38.responded to the survey and whatever decision is made, some
:11:38. > :11:45.people will be upset and it might influence strong views in favour of
:11:45. > :11:47.In Dundee, we have Professor John Haul-Dane, director of St.Andrews
:11:47. > :11:49.University's Centre for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs. And
:11:49. > :11:55.in Edinburgh, Richard Holloway, a writer and former Episcopalian
:11:55. > :11:59.bishop of Edinburgh. Thank you for coming in. This is obviously a very
:11:59. > :12:04.interesting area where law an morality can collide. It might be
:12:04. > :12:08.useful to look at a legal principle of harm here. If a gay Christian
:12:08. > :12:12.couple wish to get married in a church, something supported by
:12:12. > :12:18.their particular church and faith, and yet are prevented from doing so
:12:18. > :12:21.by an existing law, which is then in that reading enshrining,
:12:21. > :12:26.formalising, prejudice and discrimination and so mitigating
:12:26. > :12:31.against a pleuralistic approach to society, you can see the legal harm
:12:31. > :12:36.to those individuals and society as a whole? On the other hand, where
:12:36. > :12:39.is the harm actually to those churches and individuals who oppose
:12:39. > :12:44.gay marriage, when there's no compulsion on them to conduct or
:12:44. > :12:49.condone these marriages? Well, that's a complex question. Look, I
:12:49. > :12:53.think there is at least three ways to look at this. One a set of
:12:53. > :12:56.political issues. Then there are legal issues and then ethical or
:12:56. > :13:00.cultural issues. As far as the legal issues are concerned, my
:13:00. > :13:03.understanding is that there is an awareness there is some complexity
:13:03. > :13:07.here and there may be a question as to whether or not there might have
:13:07. > :13:11.to be change in equality legislation to protect those church
:13:11. > :13:17.that's do not want to conduct gay marriages and don't want to be
:13:17. > :13:21.exposed to legal action on that score. But that seems to me is a
:13:21. > :13:24.legal question. I take it that what most people are interested in, a
:13:24. > :13:28.technical legal question,if you like, I suppose what we would say
:13:28. > :13:33.something like this: We want the law to protect the interests, to
:13:33. > :13:37.the extent it's possible, of all the citizenery. Clearly here we
:13:37. > :13:41.have contest over a central issue. We have to find a way, to the
:13:41. > :13:45.extent it's possible, of allowing people space in which to express
:13:45. > :13:50.their views and recognising the rights of others to do so. If there
:13:50. > :13:55.are conflicting interests, clearly as there are in this, and there is
:13:55. > :13:59.no element of compulsion on one party, but there is an element of
:13:59. > :14:02.denying something to another party, why is it not reasonable to say
:14:02. > :14:07.that in the best interests of society as a whole, we will not
:14:07. > :14:10.deny things to people and equally we won't compel others to do
:14:10. > :14:15.something they don't want to do? Precisely, the question of
:14:15. > :14:19.compulsion is what's at issue here. This is where there is this
:14:19. > :14:23.question as to whether or not under the current equalities legislation,
:14:23. > :14:27.whether the rights of those who do not wish to conduct such marriages
:14:27. > :14:31.can be protected against civil action. If they could, would that
:14:31. > :14:35.satisfy you? Well, I mean, I'm not so much interested, I take it we're
:14:35. > :14:40.interested in larger questions about respect and so on and I mean
:14:40. > :14:42.the gay marriage issue, my own part, I'm not opposed to civil
:14:43. > :14:47.partnership. The point about marriage is that I don't think
:14:47. > :14:51.marriage is a rights issue, it's a common good issue. It's about how
:14:51. > :14:56.society wants to regard it fl is. It's a larger question. In some way,
:14:56. > :15:02.is it not tempting to frame this in a legal way because when you come
:15:02. > :15:09.out of a legal pair dime and have a moral debate, it gets ugly quickly,
:15:09. > :15:11.does it not? That's not surprising. Big cultural shifts are always
:15:11. > :15:18.painful. What we're seeing at moment in Scotland and in the whole
:15:18. > :15:21.of Britain is a shift in a direction that's been resisted,
:15:21. > :15:29.understandably, by institution that's have a different
:15:29. > :15:35.understanding of what's right, legal and moral. Just think of the
:15:35. > :15:40.over giving women the vote. A lot of similar arguments were used
:15:40. > :15:48.against that, but institutions are very cumbersome creatures to change
:15:48. > :15:52.and the ecology requires most of us to reference them -- reverence them
:15:52. > :15:56.and keep them stable. If they're too unchanging they don't adapt to
:15:56. > :15:59.new realities. We're seeing the slow adapting of our culture
:15:59. > :16:04.politically to the status of gay people. I think the other thing I'd
:16:04. > :16:08.say is that on the whole, the state is very sensitive to religious
:16:08. > :16:12.opinions and convictions here and religious institutions are already
:16:13. > :16:18.exempt from a lot of equalities legislation. They cannot be sued,
:16:18. > :16:23.for instance, for refusing to accept women priests or employ
:16:23. > :16:28.women in sacred professions like that, so I think that politicians
:16:28. > :16:33.are well aware of the complexities here. My hunch is, I may be wrong,
:16:33. > :16:37.my hunch is once the dust has settled and this is past, in a few
:16:37. > :16:41.years, churches all round, the one that's oppose and ones that favour
:16:41. > :16:47.it will adjust and find that the earth hasn't opened and swallowed
:16:47. > :16:51.them up. We need to have these fierce debates to move things on.
:16:51. > :16:56.You said in the past anything less than approbation becomes a target
:16:56. > :17:00.for legal action, in what regard do you think that's likely? Well,
:17:00. > :17:03.again, you're pressing the legal question and that's a technical
:17:03. > :17:08.question. Probably what you're referring to is this: I've observed
:17:08. > :17:12.in the past there has been a slide, I think, over the notion of
:17:12. > :17:19.toleration. So, toleration means put up with that of which you do
:17:19. > :17:22.not approve. Whereas there is a tendencey to say you are not
:17:22. > :17:28.tolerant unless awe prove or indeed celebrate. It's for the reasons
:17:28. > :17:32.Richard touched on, in many ways these are devicive issues, debates
:17:32. > :17:35.about the economy, military issues, there are a range of issues we
:17:35. > :17:38.debate in society. It's important we are able to find a way of
:17:38. > :17:44.tolerating the fact that there are people who disagree with us. That's
:17:44. > :17:49.got to be true for all of us. This is a question of cultivating a
:17:49. > :17:53.civility. Toleration doesn't mean approving what others' think or the
:17:53. > :17:57.way they live, it means adjusting to the fact that they do have these
:17:57. > :18:04.opinions and live in that way and so on. I would hope that Richard
:18:04. > :18:08.agrees, that toleration is a very important social virtue, but it's a
:18:08. > :18:15.question precisely of accepting, as fellow citizens, people with whom
:18:15. > :18:20.one doesn't agree. I do agree with. That I find tolerance a kind of
:18:20. > :18:24.neutral word. I prefer words like generosity, the ability to let
:18:24. > :18:29.someone have a point of view that you passionately disagree with and
:18:29. > :18:32.yet a bit of you is actually glad of that, because in the ecology of
:18:32. > :18:36.idea it's by passionate disagreement that we move on and
:18:36. > :18:39.even sometimes adjust our own thinking. But also, this is open to
:18:39. > :18:43.subjective interpretations of what is a reasonable way to respond and
:18:43. > :18:47.what is a tolerant attitude. Obviously, you're lining up on
:18:47. > :18:51.opposite sides of this, both arguing for tolerance here. Picking
:18:51. > :18:54.up something John mentioned, the sorts of things with which the
:18:54. > :18:59.church is interested now. We understand from theologians there
:18:59. > :19:07.are four occasions when Jesus talk abouts sexual relations and many
:19:07. > :19:11.occasions when he talk abouts money, usery and justice. Are churches
:19:11. > :19:18.obsessed with private sexual autonomy? You could argue that. It
:19:18. > :19:21.seems to get us in a real mess. The Anglican Church has been endlessly
:19:21. > :19:25.debating this. It doesn't other important things, but that's the
:19:25. > :19:28.issue the press is interested in. You could say that public opinion
:19:28. > :19:33.zeros in on these issues because the press is interested. We
:19:33. > :19:39.actually debate many other issues. You're right, Jesus doesn't say a
:19:39. > :19:44.lot about sex in the New Testament at all. He's wanting generosity and
:19:44. > :19:52.forgiveness in relationships and we all fail. Most theologians today
:19:52. > :19:55.realise we've moved on a lot and away the -- the way we affirm
:19:55. > :20:00.different relationships. The church used to have a grudging attitude to
:20:00. > :20:05.sex in marriage. The old prayer book used to say that marriage wore
:20:05. > :20:10.people who couldn't be celibate. Celibacy was the highest vocation.
:20:10. > :20:15.You got married, it was like being on methadone maintenance programme,
:20:15. > :20:20.if you couldn't do without sex, you got a lie sefpbs for it. Churches
:20:20. > :20:27.do move on and change, slowly. you accept that Christian morality
:20:27. > :20:32.evolves? Yes, in some sense that is so. Our understanding of things
:20:32. > :20:36.evolves and so on. I think it's just two things briefly, one is the
:20:36. > :20:42.idea that the church is preoccupied with sex seems curious. The other
:20:42. > :20:48.one, I'm sorry, we're out of time. Just the importance of cultivating
:20:48. > :20:50.the value of civility. That's a good note to end on. We agree on
:20:50. > :20:55.good note to end on. We agree on that. Thank you both. Quick look at
:20:55. > :21:00.tomorrow's papers: The Herald leads with the story we covered first,
:21:00. > :21:08.SNP reveals plans for policy switch on NATO.
:21:08. > :21:13.Scotsman - going with that. SNP leaders set for U-turn on defence.
:21:13. > :21:16.The Guardian - ten days to the Games, what could go wrong? I think