16/07/2012 Newsnight Scotland

The SNP's long-standing policy of staying out of NATO is to be

updated. The party conference had been asked to go changed in a

policy of independence. Also tonight, why is the debate over

same-sex marriage angry? As this programme predicted, the SNP will

debate NATO after independence as long as Trident is removed. That

seems to be the substance of the The traditionalist MP view of the

defence has been to have a Scotland free of nuclear weapons and

involvement with NATO. There was great interest in the suggestion

that leading nationalist politicians were planning a change

in party policy to allow them to remain within NATO. That never got

to the council but today has confirmed that it will be debated

at the national policy conference in September. The motion in the --

is saying that they should stick with NATO as long as they remove a

Trident and can do is hit. Some Do you accept that in discussing

this policy it will be seen as a fundamental betrayal by significant

numbers of supporters... I am looking for it to the debate it.

The branches and constituency associations will decide on this

defence policy and I think To be fair, I know you are concentrating

on an aspect of the policy update. It is a detailed proposal and it

goes through the reasons why we should be able to make security

affairs debated in Scotland. Could a... And what that will mean in

terms of a defence in Scotland, it is important to understand that the

issue of Treaty relationships with neighbours and friends is part of

the update. I think it is a welcome debate to be had because in recent

years when I have been travelling around to understand the kind of

relationship that they might want to have with an independent

Scotland, it has become obvious that working together through

treaty organisations is absolutely key for them and we want them to be

good advice.... You understand that we have got a big gap in defence

policy and you are conceding that in what you say here. The proposals

have been made because having spoken to the SNP with a wide

ranging review and having spoken to external experts and having

travelled around neighbouring countries, it is clear that 10

years on from the last policy, we have got areas that do need

Updating. We face unprecedented challenges through cyber terrorism.

To we do not have a lot of time. Let's focus on NATO. A do you

accept that this discussion, whether or not the SNP are in or

out on whatever terms, is is not a messy policy discussion? It seems

like not just a change but a significant betrayal that he would

even discuss it. The you accept that? I do not a thinks so.

flexible are your principles? If they say that you cannot stay in

unless you keep Trident, what do you say to that? Nuclear weapons

had been stationed in other countries with bilateral

arrangements between the two countries and it does not involve

NATO. That would be the relationship between Scotland and

the rest of the United Kingdom. If we look at the history of the few

countries that have weapons, this would be the United States and they

have been drawn from Canada and Greece. We have got a

misunderstanding. What has been proposed is that after independence

and the resolution I am proposing would work together with neighbours,

friends and allies, on the basis that we would not have nuclear

weapons in Scotland. The majority of people do not want Trident in

Scotland and neither do I or the SNP. We have got an opportunity to

work closely with friends and neighbours and allies and get rid

of nuclear weapons and have appropriate defences in Scotland.

That is the duty of making decisions in Scotland. That is why

we need independence and to be able to set our agenda. Would it be the

case that if you did get rid of tridents that he would actually

allow vessels from other members in territorial waters? Were should

look at the policy of a northern European neighbours in NATO but

without nuclear weapons, like Norway. They have made it

understood that they did not train forces with nuclear weapons and

will not stationed them in the country. They did not want to be

part of them and neither do Scotland. We want to work with

neighbours and allies. That is what NATO is supposed to be about. That

is for us and it is primarily about conventional defence. Co-operating

together and watching one another's backs. That is what the neighbours

want. We do want to work together It is widely expected that the

Scottish Cabinet will discuss what it wants to do about same-sex

marriage. Cardinal Keith O'Brien made it clear that he wants a

referendum which was rejected by many of his opponents. Both sides

are used to extravagant language and generalisations have been

flying has brutally as offensive remarks. We will discuss what is

debate says about the society but first, we will get updated on the

story. It was gay pride in Glasgow on Saturday. A these days it is

more like a carnival and a campaigning rally. At gay men and

lesbians are fighting for equality, which has been won but they want

the abolition of Section 28 and perhaps most crucially, the idea of

straightforward prejudice is often considered to be beyond the pale.

But campaigners insist that there is more to be done. That same-sex

marriage is the current battleground. When we came out

initially, I was not for, or against. But what is now happening

is the campaign against it. When I was being referred to as a doctor

in a field and do better than bestiality and that sort of thing,

then I started supporting the Civil partnerships did same-sex

couples the same legal rank as heterosexual couples. Some people

refer to them as gay weddings. But in law, they are not weddings.

they are not the same things as a marriage. It does not have the same

respect and the same rights. government insists that the Church

will have to conduct same-sex weddings. But this has not calm

anxieties, especially in the Roman Catholic Church. One concern is

that they could be a situation where they are forced to hold gay

weddings. Some groups have been pushing the agenda of quite some

time and they have definitely skewed the balance of public

opinion. It is time to have a balanced discussion and debate

about that reasonably. And then day will see we have to keep this going.

We had a variety of views here today. It is the same-sex marriage

that I am against in the Catholic Church. I feel that the civil

partnerships and the legal rights that they want and the financial

rights, and I think that my personal belief is that marriage is

a union between a man and a woman. A devout Catholics and activists

are a part of diverse society and according to a survey, downright

hostility to gay marriage is a minority view. When people were

asked its same-sex couples should have the right to marry, 60 %

agreed and 19 % disagreed. But other surveys have not had decisive

results. We have had progressive governments around the world

legalising same-sex marriage. The majority of politicians have fought

for this. The modern SNP sees itself as a progressive social

democratic party. But in gay weddings, members did not speak as

one of. This former leader is a staunch opponent. And at the

conference last year a small minority at a fringe debate

demonstrated the conviction of some critics. I think that whether the

nation goes forward team independence under the SNP will

depend on what the SNP does with the best, whether we continue to be

blessed by God and able to lead the nation, or whether his blessing

will fall from us, if we allowhomosexual marriage as opposed

to partnership. -- allowhomosexual marriage. Thousands of people

responded to the survey and whatever decision is made, some

people will be upset and it might influence strong views in favour of

In Dundee, we have Professor John Haul-Dane, director of St.Andrews

University's Centre for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs. And

in Edinburgh, Richard Holloway, a writer and former Episcopalian

bishop of Edinburgh. Thank you for coming in. This is obviously a very

interesting area where law an morality can collide. It might be

useful to look at a legal principle of harm here. If a gay Christian

couple wish to get married in a church, something supported by

their particular church and faith, and yet are prevented from doing so

by an existing law, which is then in that reading enshrining,

formalising, prejudice and discrimination and so mitigating

against a pleuralistic approach to society, you can see the legal harm

to those individuals and society as a whole? On the other hand, where

is the harm actually to those churches and individuals who oppose

gay marriage, when there's no compulsion on them to conduct or

condone these marriages? Well, that's a complex question. Look, I

think there is at least three ways to look at this. One a set of

political issues. Then there are legal issues and then ethical or

cultural issues. As far as the legal issues are concerned, my

understanding is that there is an awareness there is some complexity

here and there may be a question as to whether or not there might have

to be change in equality legislation to protect those church

that's do not want to conduct gay marriages and don't want to be

exposed to legal action on that score. But that seems to me is a

legal question. I take it that what most people are interested in, a

technical legal question,if you like, I suppose what we would say

something like this: We want the law to protect the interests, to

the extent it's possible, of all the citizenery. Clearly here we

have contest over a central issue. We have to find a way, to the

extent it's possible, of allowing people space in which to express

their views and recognising the rights of others to do so. If there

are conflicting interests, clearly as there are in this, and there is

no element of compulsion on one party, but there is an element of

denying something to another party, why is it not reasonable to say

that in the best interests of society as a whole, we will not

deny things to people and equally we won't compel others to do

something they don't want to do? Precisely, the question of

compulsion is what's at issue here. This is where there is this

question as to whether or not under the current equalities legislation,

whether the rights of those who do not wish to conduct such marriages

can be protected against civil action. If they could, would that

satisfy you? Well, I mean, I'm not so much interested, I take it we're

interested in larger questions about respect and so on and I mean

the gay marriage issue, my own part, I'm not opposed to civil

partnership. The point about marriage is that I don't think

marriage is a rights issue, it's a common good issue. It's about how

society wants to regard it fl is. It's a larger question. In some way,

is it not tempting to frame this in a legal way because when you come

out of a legal pair dime and have a moral debate, it gets ugly quickly,

does it not? That's not surprising. Big cultural shifts are always

painful. What we're seeing at moment in Scotland and in the whole

of Britain is a shift in a direction that's been resisted,

understandably, by institution that's have a different

understanding of what's right, legal and moral. Just think of the

over giving women the vote. A lot of similar arguments were used

against that, but institutions are very cumbersome creatures to change

and the ecology requires most of us to reference them -- reverence them

and keep them stable. If they're too unchanging they don't adapt to

new realities. We're seeing the slow adapting of our culture

politically to the status of gay people. I think the other thing I'd

say is that on the whole, the state is very sensitive to religious

opinions and convictions here and religious institutions are already

exempt from a lot of equalities legislation. They cannot be sued,

for instance, for refusing to accept women priests or employ

women in sacred professions like that, so I think that politicians

are well aware of the complexities here. My hunch is, I may be wrong,

my hunch is once the dust has settled and this is past, in a few

years, churches all round, the one that's oppose and ones that favour

it will adjust and find that the earth hasn't opened and swallowed

them up. We need to have these fierce debates to move things on.

You said in the past anything less than approbation becomes a target

for legal action, in what regard do you think that's likely? Well,

again, you're pressing the legal question and that's a technical

question. Probably what you're referring to is this: I've observed

in the past there has been a slide, I think, over the notion of

toleration. So, toleration means put up with that of which you do

not approve. Whereas there is a tendencey to say you are not

tolerant unless awe prove or indeed celebrate. It's for the reasons

Richard touched on, in many ways these are devicive issues, debates

about the economy, military issues, there are a range of issues we

debate in society. It's important we are able to find a way of

tolerating the fact that there are people who disagree with us. That's

got to be true for all of us. This is a question of cultivating a

civility. Toleration doesn't mean approving what others' think or the

way they live, it means adjusting to the fact that they do have these

opinions and live in that way and so on. I would hope that Richard

agrees, that toleration is a very important social virtue, but it's a

question precisely of accepting, as fellow citizens, people with whom

one doesn't agree. I do agree with. That I find tolerance a kind of

neutral word. I prefer words like generosity, the ability to let

someone have a point of view that you passionately disagree with and

yet a bit of you is actually glad of that, because in the ecology of

idea it's by passionate disagreement that we move on and

even sometimes adjust our own thinking. But also, this is open to

subjective interpretations of what is a reasonable way to respond and

what is a tolerant attitude. Obviously, you're lining up on

opposite sides of this, both arguing for tolerance here. Picking

up something John mentioned, the sorts of things with which the

church is interested now. We understand from theologians there

are four occasions when Jesus talk abouts sexual relations and many

occasions when he talk abouts money, usery and justice. Are churches

obsessed with private sexual autonomy? You could argue that. It

seems to get us in a real mess. The Anglican Church has been endlessly

debating this. It doesn't other important things, but that's the

issue the press is interested in. You could say that public opinion

zeros in on these issues because the press is interested. We

actually debate many other issues. You're right, Jesus doesn't say a

lot about sex in the New Testament at all. He's wanting generosity and

forgiveness in relationships and we all fail. Most theologians today

realise we've moved on a lot and away the -- the way we affirm

different relationships. The church used to have a grudging attitude to

sex in marriage. The old prayer book used to say that marriage wore

people who couldn't be celibate. Celibacy was the highest vocation.

You got married, it was like being on methadone maintenance programme,

if you couldn't do without sex, you got a lie sefpbs for it. Churches

do move on and change, slowly. you accept that Christian morality

evolves? Yes, in some sense that is so. Our understanding of things

evolves and so on. I think it's just two things briefly, one is the

idea that the church is preoccupied with sex seems curious. The other

one, I'm sorry, we're out of time. Just the importance of cultivating

the value of civility. That's a good note to end on. We agree on

good note to end on. We agree on that. Thank you both. Quick look at

tomorrow's papers: The Herald leads with the story we covered first,

SNP reveals plans for policy switch on NATO.

Scotsman - going with that. SNP leaders set for U-turn on defence.

The Guardian - ten days to the Games, what could go wrong? I think