Episode 4 The Big Questions

Thank you. Good morning everyone. Welcome to The Big Questions from

Leith Academy in Edinburgh. I'm Nicky Campbell. On Wednesday

Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond, launched a consultation

paper outlining his country's plans on independence. But the rest of

the UK isn't going to get a say. Our first Big Question. Would the

UK miss Scotland? Margaret Curran and Ruth Davidson are here to

explain why many Labour and Scots are united in against the plans.

And same sex couples marrying in church. Should gay couples have the

right to marry? Prominent Roman Catholics and Protestants stand

side by side. Welcome to everybody on The Big Questions this morning.

Alex Salmond's vision for an independent Scotland built on

fairness is as a beacon for progressive opinion south of the

border. But the First Ministers of Wales and Northern Ireland are more

afraid that the removal of Scotland's voting power will

fundamentally change what remains of the United Kingdom. Would the UK

miss Scotland? It's been an incredibly successful nation state

for 300 years. Scotland contributed and benefited hugely from the

empiper adventure, but Margaret Curran, looking that the from a UK

perspective, what would the removal of Scotland mean for the rest of

the United Kingdom? I think it would be a huge loss if Scotland

separated off from the United Kingdom. We've got a big decision

to make in Scotland about that. Scotland's contributed enormously

in terms of people, in terms of wealth and culture. But that will

continue won't it? As part of of the union it is better to be

partners rather than competitors. APPLAUSE That doesn't mean to say

it is an unchanging partnership. Of course it is changing. Devolution

is perhaps one of the most important things that's happened to

Scotland and the UK. I hope it continues and will grow strongly.

You can have a strong Scotland and a strong United Kingdom. I'm

Scottish and British. I'm proud to be Scottish. I'm very patriotic.

That doesn't mean I don't think about the English. I think they are

partners and we can grow and be strong together. Alan Bissett this,

has been an incredibly successful nation state for 300 years. There's

a quote from Dominic sand brook. Blinkered, mean-spirited and

unscrutiny louse politicians are destroying something special.

I don't think. So it hasn't worked out for a great many people in

Scotland. Glasgow has the lowest life expectancy in Europe - highest

knife crime rate. How does the union explain that if we are living

this times of plenty. And you maintain and argue that the union

is culturally damaging to Scotland. What does that mean? Scotland

doesn't know what it is. It's never been allowed to grow up and mature

as a nation, because we've always been in this straitjacket. Such

things as the Scottish cringe and pessimism, all these things we are

told that are our national characteristics. That's not what

Scotland wants to be. Imagine after a "yes" vote the euphoria that

would sweep this country, the cultural confidence we would have

for ourselves that never Been allowed? I think a lot of people

would like to take the north of England with us. There is more in

common between Glasgow and Liverpool than Liverpool and London.

Scots have the decide what's better for them as a people. John Haldane,

in what ways do you think this would affect Britain? I think it

would expose a real problem for England. That's perhaps not

something since we are in Scotland today we need to focus on. I think

we do need to focus on it. There's a question about English identity

in this respect. It seems to me the union came into existence for

entirely practical reasons, economic on the part of Scotland,

defence on the part of England because of its anxiety about wars

with France and the Scots being allied with that. Over the

centuries a familiarial relationship has developed. The

point was made that people in Glasgow may have more in common

with people in Liverpool than, say, with other parts of Scotland or

England. That's right. We are part of a larger union. It has provided

the Scots with a stage in which they can move. This idea that

Scotland has somehow been culturally inhicted, I just don't

see. Scotland is a significant contributor to British culture.

That's correct but it is probably despite the British state.

APPLAUSE After the rigged 1979 referendum on devolution which the

British Government make sure that even though the majority of Scots

voted yes it didn't go through there was a huge flurry in Scottish

culture. That was because of the subconscious reaction against the

British state. Have you ever heard of the Scottish enlightenment? That

was the greatest flowering ever. To say you can see echoes of Scotland

where you live and where I represent. I would subject Belfast,

Liverpool, Newcastle, where I have family and friends, I see very much

of Glasgow in all these places. There are similarities between

different parts of the United Kingdom. I think that we gain a

huge amount for being part of like you say, not just an economic but a

cultural union. With countries that have the same language as us.

Places that have a similar background, have gone through the

same political processes as us to. Break off from that... Those ties

of kinship, Ruth Davidson, will surely continue unchanged. But why

would you want to break them off just now when people like them and

put up barriers to that. Particularly when the majority of

Scots want to keep the ties that bind. That is nonsense. Scotland is

not going anywhere. Will it still being here. We are not floating off

into the North Sea somewhere. to get the oil. Oil will stay with

us of course. The fact remains that all of the strong social unions,

the family and the cultural this exist at the moment will continue

after independence. In fact I believe we'll have a strengthened

position for both Scotland and the rest of the UK post independence.

We could work in partnership where it is in our mutual benefit and

interest, but where we have a different view of the world, for

example on weapons of mass destruction, we could get rid of

them. You cannot have a union where there's been political and social

union for 300 years, similar language, the same currency, to

take us out of that to put us in a union with 27 other nations without

that same economic union and cycle and language. I don't see why you

are so intent on doing that when the majority of Scots don't want

it? Because we would have the ability to determine our own

destiny. But you are tying it to Brussels. The UK Government is

pursuing policys which for the most part are abhorrent to the Scottish

people. We don't want the disabled people... More than two thirds of

Scots support the cap on welfare payments. Not doesn't the SNP?

spoke fondly op your kinsfolk in the north of England. Maybe your

political brothers and sisters as well. Are you not abandoning the

core left-wing vote, the Labour vote, to a Tory Britain if Scotland

leaves? Unfortunately yes. Did you feel guilty about that? I do.

that self determination or selfishness? It is search

determination. That's exactly what it is. The unfortunate thing is

England continues to vote Tory. Scotland does not. There's a

democratic deficit here. There are no Tory votes in Scotland. And yet

we have to endure decades of Tory rule. That is not good for the

people of Scotland. I have to come in here 24. Is -- I have to come in

here. More people voted Liberal Democrat in the 2010 general

election than voted SNP for Alex Salmond and First Minister. That is

incorrect. 898,000 voted for the coalition pact. Politics in Britain

fluctuates. The only party that's had a majority of seats in Scotland

is the Conservatives. This is my point. Politics fluctuates.

There'll be periods in which one party will comes to the foreand

another party and so on. What we are talking about here is breaking

up an enduring union. The question that hasn't been brought into focus

is what exactly we are talking about. I gather today Alex Salmond

is continuing to talk about the existence of the British state

beyond this point. It seems to me... The United Kingdom. He talked about

the British state and the continuation of the union of the

kingdoms can, with the sovereign remaining and so on. This leaves

many of us puzzled as to what we are talking about when talking

about independence. The thing north and south of the border and in the

Principality of Wales and in Northern Ireland people should be

most concerned about and most press is what exactly is it that we are

talking about? You can't talk about Scotland going it own way while at

the same time talking about the the continuation of the British state.

This idea of a social union is a warm, fatty phrase. It needs to be

defined. APPLAUSE What was true of Scotland

between the union of the couns and the Parliaments? How would you

describe that? A period of economic collapse basically. Remember you

are talking about a Europe this those times made of of tiny

kingdoms and pains palities. Most of the European states were

products of the 19th century. Germany. Italy. The trend was to

create nation states. At the end of the Second World War there were

approximately 50 independent countries in the United Nations.

There are now 200. The trend is for smaller nations in the world.

That's the trend. It is opposite of what you are saying. Will this, if

it happens, be better for Wales, will it be better for England,

better for Northern Ireland, and why? I think it is better for the

rest of the United Kingdom and for Scotland. What we have at the

moment is an unfairness. At the moment, in the European Union, the

UK has one vote at the top table. Post-poips there'll be two votes.

You have to apply to join? No we don't. The weight of opinion

suggests that you do. That's an assertion. That's not truth. We'll

both be members of the European Union. Both have votes at the top

table. Where our interests meet together we can work together for

the benefit of both. Two votes rather than one. The real debate is

about the future of Scotland and the needs of people. And the future

of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I accept, that but for

those of us who will be voting in the referendum it is largely about

the future of Scotland. One of the implications of, that what matters

for the people of the UK, is Scotland's economic future. I want

to ask Stuart, the proposal from the SNP is that Scotland will

remain part of sterling and the British currency. I don't

understand why that is independence in separation. I don't know how you

can have that and be part of a sovereign and a foreign power and

the policies of that. It is quite clear that there are 67

approximately countries in the world in monetary unions, currency

unions. That's a perfectly normal situation around the world. They

don't think of themselves as any less independent because they are

in the same currency zone. Would you want to join the euro? If it

benefited the Scottish people. That's a phrase out of the back

pocket! We wouldn't do it if it was against us. You wouldn't do it

tomorrow would you? Certainly not. If peopled for it. Owen Dudley-

Edwards, you said Scottish is a country that's compassionate to the

core and independence would let that compassion express itself,

whereas England, driven by the English political class, is far

more materialistic. What do you mean? First of all, if I can make

one or two small points, there's a country called Ireland which is

also part of our archipelago. It contains very many people who've

cousins in Britain. It existed in the sterling area between 1920 and

1970, Margaret Curran - learn a little Irish history. It was able

to do so and the existence of Ireland then is a reminder to us of

quite a number of things, including the fact that so many Irish

continue to prosper in several generations in Britain, including

the fact that you had a Prime Minister whose name most people

couldn't pronounce because it was so Irish - James Callaghan. Ireland

at the same time is a warning. Implacably against violence and

they've elevated Scottish nationalism to be an anti-violent,

non-violent brief. The contrast with Ireland is overwhelming and

important. So credit for not using guns, and bombss? On the positive

side for preaching a gospel of It's basic to the question as far

as... Quickly on that point? He's an Irishman, a fine historian, but

look, the fact of the matter is, you know what happened in Ireland,

in the 19th century there was a movement for home rule. What that

became was something that divided Ireland very deeply. I don't just

mean north and south in what is now the republic as well. It has to be

said that one consequence, we saw this with the break-up of

Yugoslavia and so on, one consequence of breaking up nation

states into smaller units is that some of the regional and other

tensions that inevitably exist start to be exposed within a

smaller stage. It would be overoptimistic to think we are not

within Scotland and I'm not thinking about sectarian, but

significant regional differences. There is a myth of this idea that

somehow Scotland enjoys a degree of cultural integrity and union within

itself that somehow means we are problem free. In fact, much of the

tensions and difficulties that any small country faces and features,

have to some extent been absorbed and concealed by being part of this

larger union in which Scots have moved freely north and south of the

borders and others have done likewise. A great danger with the

break-up of the UK is that you get an intensification of some of the

divisions that already exist. England, aspects of society may

emerge? I think that's a real danger? Is it? I think it's

provided... Ruth Davies? In this multicultural, globalised world,

you clearly believe we face the challenges better within the

structure of a British state, but there's also a strong current of

resentment in the rest of the UK that they're paying for this,

they're paying for the way Scotland lives at the moment. Would.the best

way to lance that boil be to go the route of Stuart Maxwell, full

independence? There's about seven questions in there, so if I may

pick and choose them. We have time. Super. Never tell a woman there's

enough time to talk! Let's not overstate this. Everybody on the

table on this is part of a democratic process and we all want

to be. Nobody is suggesting or scaremongering that this will go

into violence. Do we see things we don't like that are being said? Yes

I do. I don't appreciate your colleague saying don't support the

SNP it's anti-Scottish. This is a debate about ideas and what the

future of Scotland should be, what we want the future of our nation to

be. The future of the UK is our angle this morning? I happen to

believe that Scotland stands taller, shouts louder and is stronger for

being part of a larger union which has served us well down the years.

The union is greater than some of the parts? Absolutely, Scots have

contributed a lot and we've got a lot back from it. For me, being

Scottish and British, I wear both nationality lightly but I don't

want someone to take the British part away. Feeling British doesn't

make me feel any less Scottish than I am. Can you explain then why the

independent report in the 1970s that that was commissioned by the

Conservative Party, the McCrone report that stated if Scotland was

to nationalise its oil industry it would have one of the hardest

currencys in Europe, there would be an embarrassing budget surplus.

That argument was pressed by Conservatives and Labour and kept

from the Scottish people. Something you might not know was that the

entire North Sea revenue was a third of the Scottish welfare bill,

so the price of oil goes up and down. Why is the Scottish welfare

bill so high? Why is it 134 Because of the policies perpetrated by

Westminster. I think the welfare bill's so high because of Scottish

Labour that's been entrenched for years and years. That is the

argument I would makes, particularly in my part of glaz.

there sufficient candour about this debate -- Glasgow? I think the

business community is largely keeping its head below the parapet

and nobody's willing to raise their head and say what they think. I

think there's a real danger there. We need to have an open debate

about kwha this means for business. What, lest they be accused of being

unpatriotic? Correct. I spend lots of time in London in what I detect

already is complete understanding of why the Scots are trying to turn

the union apart, leading to resentment and I already detect

that, being in London a couple of day this is week. Our largest

public, private sector employers are the banks, the supermarkets,

whether we like it or not, they are English companies. I'd be extremely

concerned about the impact which the whole thing may have on the way

that English look at the Scots and what impact that may have if you

think that England is today our largest single export market, we

want to make sure we've still got the ability to trade freely in our

largest... This morning... APPLAUSE Speaking to Andrew, Alex

Salmond promised lower corporate tax rates and with natural

resources in Scotland, couldn't Scotland adoin Norway be a success.

Independent nation attractive for business? That sounds terrific. My

day job, I help people to start new technology companies. You have no

chance of getting finance unless you have got a terrific business

plan, strong management team and you stand up to rigorous diligence.

An investor puts his money into something without those things,

he'll lose it. At the moment, I think the Scots are being asked to

invest, by extension and analogy, we are being asked to invest in a

company with no business plan, no visibility in its management team

post-independence and basically, I had a look at the referendum

document which appeared this week, it's all about the process, there's

nothing in it whatsoever about the substance.

I think the reason that support for independence is growing can

actually be because of the arguments that are ah tick rated on

this side of the hall this morning -- articulated. We have had scare

stories and a suggestion that we need to be protected in Scotland in

case we dissolve into a Balkan-type conflict. It's unbelievably

depressing a view of the people of Scotland. This is a basic issue of

fairness. I lived in England for a long time, I understand people

there are very fair minded. If we had a general election and one

party had one Member of Parliament and they said, we are the

Government, we are going to be in charge of economic Sol pi and we

are going to be the Prime Minister, people in England would laugh at

that. We have a Conservative Member of Parliament. We are a coalition

of Government. One member of Scotland and they are in charge of

our country. A lot of Lib Dems in Scotland? The other thing I would

say, on the day that Alex Salmond launched the independence renk

double, on the week that David Cameron raised this issue in

particular, there are two important facts that came out, one, one in

five of our churn in Scotland live in poverty and next year, we'll

have record investment in the North Sea oil. We have generated �300

million of royalties in North Sea oil and one in five children in our

country live in poverty and you are telling us we shouldn't be changing.

APPLAUSE There is a big issue over North Sea

oil. If we were running this country, people would be incapable.

That's not the argument. Denmark, Switzerland and Norway couldn't do

it. It's not the country, it's to do with us, Scotland, you are

saying, we are incapable. It's not the size of the country, it's what

that country... You think it's Scotland, it's to do with us.

never said that. Do you go to Denmark and tell them they're a

country of five million people and therefore they're incapable. That

is not my argument, it's not the size of the country, it's what the

country decides to do. It's to do with Scotland, not the size. But

you said it's not the size, it's the country. You will be on the

naughty step in a minute, you know that, don't stkpwhrou! I think you

have to see a different thing about distributing resources across the

country. Every month since the SNP have been elected, child poverty's

gone up so I would be less righteous about tackling priority.

We can't do anything about it, we haven't got the power. That's the

point. It's about how you use the resources. We have heard the First

Minister say this morning he wants to cut corporation tax, you wanted

to cut taxs to the bankers. That's not what I would want to do, I

would want to make sure you raise taxes to make sure you help tackle

pofr any Scotland and that's a policy you should be arguing for --

poverty. How will Scotland do? You are off

the naughty step now and are back in favour. With a deficit about

what it takes in and pays out, you are relying on the oil revenues

aren't you, because you are not going to get all that money from

the Barnet formula and there are people watching from elsewhere in

the UK who realise that the spend per Capita is far higher than where

they live? We are not just relying on the oil revenue. How are you

going to make the money then? four of the five years before the

crash Scotland was in surplus. From the ten years from 2000, the UK as

a whole was in deficit. I think the argument... There's another

important point here. You were talking about Alex Salmond this

morning who's clearly a giant in British politics, never mind

Scottish politics, but can we trust his vision? This is a man who

encouraged Sir Fred Goodwin in the take-over that RBS did on ABN AMRO.

His Finance Minister wrote congratulating Sir Fred Goodwin on

that. Embarrassing? I don't think so. The former Labour First

Minister, Jack McConnell, suggested that Fred Goodwin should get his

Knighthood. I don't criticise him for that because at the time people

were thinking it was a successful Scottish business, we now know

something very different. Post- independence about what it would be

a successful project? The issue of money is very important. It's good

for the UK. At the moment we have a situation where there's some

unpleasantness because people in England, some right-wing

commentators will say, we are living the high life with free

tuition fees and prescriptions off the back of people in England. I

look at the oil resources and Norway with its �5 50 billion oil

fund and I think, put that to good use. If we happened independence,

the revenue raiseded if Scotland would stay in Scotland and same in

England and we could meet as equals.. What about the oil?

started off with culture and Scotland, Wales and Ireland have a

much stronger cultural identity than England, but if this is what

is emerging from this is the elephant in the room, it's till

about oil. Oil production peaked in 1997. What I know about oil is that

North Sea oil will run out the lifetime of my children,

grandchildren. So if we have a vision for the future of Scotland...

That's a long time. Well, I think people, Alex Salmond, is choosing

to have the referendum in the 70th anniversary of Bannockburn or

something like that, so that was a long time ago -- 70th anniversary.

So let's look into the future and think about our children and our

children's children. It's nothing to do with oil and everything to do

with creating sustainable ement employment for our next generation

-- sustainable employment. A quick point there? Ewan mentioned the

fact about poverty. Poverty is one of the social issues and the social

problems that we have in Scotland, right, and the other point was

about the oil. The oil will only last about 50 years or so, that's

what's been forecast. I would like to add that Scotland has enjoyed

prosperity for over 300 years with the act of union in 1707. We cannot

deny that. After the that, the Victorians have increased the

wealth of Scotland and I think it will be devastating if Scotland

splits... Profits of empire are all around us? We can look at the

castles we have. It's not an insecure country. Scots have

prospered in Scotland and they've been able to migrate down to

England and get work. There is no work in Scotland at the moment and

this is not another issue that we haven't touched on.

I think it's really important to emphasise that this debate is much

less about rejecting Britain and much more about Scotland embracing

itself, empowering itself, giving powers to the world, it's not a

separatist movement, about inclusion. It's about Scotland's

future. What sort of Government do we want? Do we want it to reflect

our values, priorities, and help us achieve our ambitions? I think when

the Scottish people get the chance to take that opportunity, they will

grassp it with both hands and we can move confidently into the 21st

century. What about England? Would England be better off for it? Would

Wales be better off for it? should establish its own political

identity of where it wants to be in the 21st century. In terms of Wales

and the north of England for the Social Democrats, if they don't

want Scotland to go alone and become a beacon of social democracy,

what do we do, do we follow the path of the Tories or follow Labour

for another few generations promising they are going to deal

with poverty and not do it in our lifetimes. Some are arguing it's

not a beacon of social democracy on match day in Glasgow, is it?

began by talking about the UK. Given where we are and the

personalities, we are focusing on the needs of Scotland in particular.

If we think about this, it's all very well to say there's only the

past and that's part of the historians talking about the past.

There was a present once and a future once, we are talking about

things extended in time. A new kind of entity was created called

Britain. Scotland needn't see itself as losing but gaining, just

as we'll talk later about same sex marriages and people entering into

unitys, it creates something larger. It's exceedingly important that

Scots be proud, that they generate their cultural identity and so on.

Those things that happen, whether in painting or so on, the Scottish

movements went on within the union, no reason why that's going to stop

I am concerned about the idea that we give up sthack was an

inretchment and then say, "What have we done now?" An enrichment?

We have an enrichment through our welfare state. Much of what was

best in the history of the United Kingdom the Scots want to stand by.

The Scots insistence on a priority in health. These are the things we

are holding to hear and which both the Tories and the Labour are

frittering away in the south. the Justice Minister said the Scots

are a compassionate people. What does that mean? To have a society

in which you are pursuing the politics of greed, constantly

telling people you are a taxpayer but these spongers, these

scroungers are trying to get money away from you, building class

hatred. That is something we are passionately opposed to.

APPLAUSE Let's have a quick show of hands. Who supports,

unrepresentative of course, this is not binding, by the way! Who

supports the union? Put your hand up. And who wants outright

independence? It's pretty evenly split. He's not sure. No, I'm not

going there. Thank you all very much indeed.

APPLAUSE Now, if you would like to have your

say on that debate, log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions. You will

find links to continue the conversation online. We are also

debating live this morning from the Leith Academy in Edinburgh - should

gay couples have the right to marry? And if you would like to be

in the audience in future, e-mail [email protected]. We are in

Southampton next week, Oxford on February 12th and in Cambridge the

week after that. David Cameron has said he supports

same sex marriage, because he believes marriage brings advantage

to society as a whole. He plans to launch a consultation on gay

marriage in March. Here in Scotland, a recent consultation on this

received over 50 ,000 responses. Tomorrow the equality network is

lobbying the Scottish Parliament to crack on with changing the law. But

the Archbishop of York, the second most powerful man in the Church of

England, says it is not the role of the state to say what marriage is.

So should gay couples have the right to marry? It is something

which is causing huge arguments and debate of course in the Church of

Scotland. We asked them to send a representative here to The Big

Questions this morning but they didn't think it in their interests

to do so. We do however have from the Free Church of Scotland, which

broke away from the Church of Scotland many months ago, Reverend

Alex MacDonald, and Gordon McDonald from Care, a Christian pressure

group. We were chatter earlier and you said it is God's plan for human

sexuality. A man and a woman in marriage. What do you mean? I

suppose the question is, why should we be looking to the Bible for

social policy in the 21st century? I think it's true that that is the

view that the Bible very clearly puts across but it has also been

the pattern of the social institution of marriage across all

cultures from time immemorial, that one man, one woman is marriage. I

know there've been departures from that in various ways. We are not

talking about something of a small interest of a small group of people

called the Church. The Bible is your starting point. Sure. It is

important to say, as a lot of people at home of an opinion will

point out that it says lots of things in the Bible, at one stage

if you work on the Sabbath you should be put to death. I don't

know if you are worried thabtd this morning yourself. Of course, Jesus

interneted the Old Testament and he said he is Lord of the Sabbath and

it is right to do good on the Sabbath day. I hope I'm doing good

today. Witchs should be killed, adulterers, we should keep slaves

and not beat them too harshly, it says why. Should we be taking

social policy from this? That's getting very complicated.

really. What you are saying is that is part of the Old Testament cannon

law or social law. Where does Jesus condemn gay marriage? Jesus

reinforces what the Old Testament does say about marriage - that

marriage is the pattern for human sexuality that God has laid down.

And any departure from that, including adultery or the breaking

of marriage, and homosexuality is a departure from that standard that

God has given. That's been the basis. We've been talking about

Scottish identity. That's been one of the fundamentals of sosh social

life, including education, -- Scottish social life, including

education and health and so on. It's a huge social experiment in

social engineering... What is going to happen? We don't know what is

going to happen. The whole respect for this entity of marriage will be

lowered. The whole question of stability of a man and a woman

bringing up their own children will be sidelined in society. Ruth, you

got married in South Africa. You married in a church. The respect

for the institution of marriage will be lowered. How do you answer

that point? I think he is barking up the wrong tree, to be honest...

APPLAUSE Jesus said nothing about homosexuality in the Bible. If

Gordon goes back and reads his Bible he will see that. Is Gordon

advocating that divorced people should be forced to remarry,

because Jesus was against divorce and he came out against the Old

Testament view that divorce was OK. The whole concept of marriage has

evolved over the years. It predates the Christian religion. Lots of

different views on marriage have awe bounded throughout the ageing.

One of the arguments people will put is that civil partnership is

marriage in every sense. No. don't think so? That's not good

enough? No, and there are a number of reasons for that. As part of a

civil partnership we are unable to express our faith beliefs. And

express our faith. It is supposed to be a fundamental human right

that we are able to include our faith in everything that we do. We

have a Minister who would have been quite prepared to marry us had the

law allowed him to in Scotland. But because we wanted a marriage that

involved our faith, we had to go abroad. Are they married? No, I

believe marriage is between one man and one woman. I have a marriage

certificate in my purse which tells us that we are married.

APPLAUSE Are they married? They are not married, because marriage is

defined by God, between a man and a woman. He defines it in seven

different ways in the Bible. Gordon and his church are entitled to

their view and no-one is trying to impose same sex marriage on any

religious group. We agree with the majority of Scots who want same sex

couples to have the same right to get married civily and for those

religious bodies who want to conduct same sex marriages to be

able to. APPLAUSE What I would challenge

Gordon on... Gordon, please let me speak. What I would challenge

Gordon on, do you respect the freedoms of quakers and Unitarians

who want to be able to conduct same sex marriages but are banned from

doing so? It would be opposed because there is a legal precedent

which says she is a public authority. That would apply to

Ministers of religion as well. The European Court of Human Rights

changes its understanding, girks don't understand your reference.

Tom's point. Don't worry about it. It is a codicil. He said that

certain religious organisations want to carry this out. Tom's

question is, did you respect their religious right snods I respect

everybody's freedom of -- I respect everybody's freedom of religion.

Thank you for saying that. disproportionate effect of

legalising this outweighs the rest. He is missing the point. If a

Catholic priest or a Jewish Rabbi was taken to court for refusing to

marry a Catholic person and a Jewish person on the grounds of

their faith it would be thrown out. We know it would be a joke, because

that expectation is not there. In the same way that I would certainly

not seek to approach somebody who was distinctly opposed to same sex

marriage, to want to marry me. It is just a fundamental misnomer. I

respect and recognise your right not only to say that you are

opposed to it and to say it as vehemently as you wish. I also

recognise your right to refuse to practice that. Did you recognise

the right of a registrar who has a conscientious objection to that?

Indeed. Allow me to answer that. If those who are part of the policy

making took a very careful look at how that is being dealt with across

the world, and in the country that I got married in... But we are

talking about Britain, case law in Britain. I'm asking tow remember

that policy makers have to look outwith where these situations have

arisen before. In a country like South Africa, where it remains a

huge debate, a person can register as formally opposed to same sex

marriage and they are legally registered as not required to do so.

You respect that right to oppose. This is the point. Absolutely.

I will come to you in a second, I know you are a practising Catholic.

We'll go to you first. What saddens me about Gordon's argument is the

lack of the use of the word "love". APPLAUSE For me, marriage is about

what -- if one of my children was gay and wanted to get married, I

would love her no less than I would love any other. You create a

division. That is not true that. Argument was put forward to silence

our argument. I love my children. I love people who I know who are

homosexual. Some of your best friends? As a Christian I love

everybody. The point is marriage is not just about love. Marriage is

about forming a new unit in society. It is about providing a context for

raising children. Marriage is a lot more than that.

APPLAUSE It is about more than just a context, Gordon, for raising

children, some would argue. John Haldane, the Pope only recently

said gay marriage undermines the future of humanity. Are you with

his holiness on that one? I'm more interested in the question of the

nature of marriage as a society. What about what the Pope said?

can address that and move to the other thing. It is clear the Roman

Catholic's view on this matter. They are strong words aren't they.

He has in mind the institution of marriage as he understands it is

the principal means through which generations are produced and

through which society is sustained and so on. He has an understanding

of what constitutes, the larger sense, in which marriage is central

to that. Can I move this, because this is a larger issue than just

what religious people think. That's been put straight off. We live in a

pluralist society and there's a diversity of positions and

interests and so on. It seems to me that the civil partnership phase of

that was an attempt to try to address that. I think there are

difficulty and people can object in one way or another, but that seems

to me a reasonable response to these contested issues. What comes

up now is the question of marriage. What I would say is this. Marriage

is an institution that is not within the gift of Government to

define or redefine. We are not talking about an extension of

marriage but a redefinition of marriage. This is an important

point. If you say the basis on which marriage should be made

available to people is love, affection, desire and so on, it

seems to me that once you depart from one man and one woman, the

traditional perception of marriage, you have no grounds of opposition

to multi-partner marriage... Can I finish this. And indeed, and this

movement exists, the GSA movement, Incest opens the door to sibling

marriage and the argument is exactly the same which is why

shouldn't people who love one another and feel a commitment to

one another and want to be together, why should that be restricted to

two or three? This is a distraction, if you are talking about polygamy,

if you look around the world, 50 countries, polygamy in legal. Only

one of them is same sex marriage also legal. If you are going to

make my connections, it would be between mixed sex marriages and

polygamy. The first point is that it's not down to the state to

define what is and isn't marriage? I don't think anyone owns the

definition of marriage, those groups that don't want to conduct

same sex marriages, the majority of Scots, 61% in the recent Scottish

social attitude survey say they do agree with same sex marriage and

most people, like Alex Salmond, who wants Scotland to be a progressive

beacon agree that lesbian and gay people should have the same rights

under the law. John Sentamu said he feels the hand of dictatorship

coming in. He says it's a matter of tradition and history, you can't

change it overnight, that's the sort of thing dictators do. He also

said that he's all for and supported civil partnerships

because that encourages friendship. I would question that because the

groups opposing this are the same ones that opposed the repeal of

section 28. Someone's behind you. When I hear John Sentamu say these

things and Mario Conti and our friend over there, I feel

embarrassed to be a Christian, I really do. You know, the whole

Bible defines seven forms of marriage, including polygamy. How

did Adam and Eve have grandchildren, you know. Marriage is something

that evolves, it's a cultural thing within society and it to evolve to

reflect the traditions of society as the Bible did reflect the

traditions current in those days. Let's bring it into a more recent

context. I grew up in a country where black-and-white people were

forbidden from getting married and the argument was that if we allow

black-and-white people to get married, mixed marriage, and it

wasn't only black-and-whites, it was Indians and mixed race people,

it would cause such social deterioration in the country. Now,

what I've actually seen in the country I was born in, when those

laws were done away with, that country has socially flourished,

despite the other problems that it has that are a knock-on effect from

the original laws. Social problems, yes? But that aspect and that part

of the rainbow nation is flowished? Yes. What about that? You hear the

objections? You hear the argument that this would in fact, contrary

to what you are saying, it would bolster, strengthen and celebrate

the institution of marriage? think it would undoubtedly change

it. The last point that was made, what's happened in South Africa is

perfectly right because, of course, it's in line with the universal

declaration of human rights. Which includes gay marriage. No, it

doesn't. It says men and women of age without limitation, due to race,

nationality, or religion, have the right to marry. Now, if it had

meant that there would be same sex marriage, it would have included it

without limitation of sex or sexuality. But it's not done that.

Why? I think if there is to be a change in this, it's to be done

universally, that it should be done through the universal declaration

on human rights. Across the world? Yes, that's the basis that's always

been recognised as a universal declaration of marriage. That's

unlukely to happen then isn't it, David? Yes. The problem I see is

that we are going slightly away from the main point and the main

point is that the definition of marriage is essentially a Christian

definition of marriage and we have Gordon and Alex there. I thoroughly

understand, I thoroughly accept their point of view, but it's not

the only point of view. There is an alternative interpretation.

APPLAUSE What about the point of universal

declaration? If I can just continue with the point I'm making. There is

an alternative interpretation. Most of the objection to same sex or

homosexuality is based upon New Testament scripture and it's based

upon one Greek word that's suddenly become called homosexual. It

doesn't, in the opinion of approximately 50% of people, mean

homosexual. In fact, it's a word that didn't even exist prior to

Paul writing it in the Corinthians. What does it mean then? The word

itself is a conisoiti. It's a mixture of two Greek words. It

didn't exist or there's no record of it existing prior to Paul

writing it. In a little translation, it's man bed or man marital bed.

That does not translate into homosexuality. Now, if we take the

Roman Catholic version, the new Jerusalem Bible, if we look in one

Corinthians, it's translated as sod mites. If we look at one Timothy,

exact think same word is translated as homosexuals. The King James

version of the Bible, that's same word is appearing as those who

abuse themselves. So ultimately, if it's two people getting married, do

you believe that God cares about their sexuality and their gender?

Personally, I don't believe he cares one jot about it. He didn't

answer your point, but respond to what he said, Alex? I think it's a

fundamental point I raised. There are some hands here. When you said

it again, hands shot up to answer it. I wonder when I hear Christian

groups talk about this issue, whether they've ever considered the

possibility that Jesus himself might have been gay. I mean, he was

a confirmed bachelor, we know that, and from what I remember of the New

Testament, he hung around mainly with men and they went, as he put

it, fishing for men. At the very least, he could have been in the

closet and, you know, it's not exactly an unknown phenomenon,

especially mongrel jous leaders to be critical -- especially among

religious leaders. Je sous - people live a sell bait life because they

want to follow Christ. So there's no problem with people having

homosexual feelings, this is about whether marriage should be

redefined and marriage, for thousands of years, the point that

John Sentamu has been saying, it's between a man and woman, it's a

social purpose for the common good of society and it's not been within

the role of the state to define or redefine it. Ruth, you heard the

points very clearly made by Gordon. You are an historic figure, if I

may say so. OK. The first leader of any of the main parties in the

British Isles and United Kingdom to be openly gay but you are not

married, are you? Would you like to marry your partner? I think I'll

leave my home life out of this because that debate is much bigger

than this. One thing I find interesting is that I used to work

for the BBC and I used to get very angry that when the discussions

about gay marriage came up, we always picked somebody from the

church. That was the anti-voice and we always picked somebody from a

gay group as the pro-voice because I think it's a misnomer to say

everybody who's gay wants marriage, everybody who's of faith is anti-

it, that's what they say. I'm happy to see David say what he said

because it seems to me that in terms to have debate, it's not

about whether you are a person of faith or not, I'm a member of the

chufpb of Scotland, the ladies here are clearly belonging to a

religious belief as well. In this country, it seems to be about age.

All the polls, whether it was the Times poll, two thirds support for

gay marriage, the Scottish social attitude survey said 61% support

for gay marriage, it's a generational issue. This isn't a

faith issue. Changing with great app idity? Yes, -- rapidity. It's

worth pointing out that this isn't as clear cut as people seem to

think it is and perhaps somebody like myself and lots of other

people are formed more by their age than their personal circumstances.

There's a danger, Gordon or Alec, that if given what Ruth has said

and if she's right, that the church is opposing this would become

increasingly irrelevant. Do you fear that, or is it all about

sticking to universal eternal principles? There are eternal

principles about what's good for society and many churches have many

young people in them, such as destiny church in Glasgow, other

churches like that which are growing which we'd hold to a

traditional Orthodox view. You are worried about society. You talked

about the riots in England and said you believed that came from a lot

of family breakdown. Is this not a way to strengthen the family and

marriage and to have people growing up in a loving relaceship? Well,

the issue about family breakdown goes much beyond this particular

debate that we are having today. It's been happening for the last 40

years in this country and we are seeing the consequence of that in

terms of educational achievement and health outcomes and in terms of

this lack of respect for law and order which we saw last summer.

Ross? To bring this back to reality, in terms of Scotland, 58% of

marriages in Scotland last year were secular. The vast majority,

human society conducts more marriages than the Catholic Church

in Scotland. So people are voting with their feet. We would love to

have same sex marriage because we support the whole fact that some of

the Christian people have said here is that marriage is about love,

it's about social aspects and everybody deserves that.

Look, we've discussed several things, what people think about the

ethics of homosexuality, what we think about marriage and now this

is an issue about marriage and Ruth is right to say there are people

who are divided within religious groups and not everybody who's gay

wants to get married. If the question is a question about

marriage, it seems to me that we need to negotiate some way through

here, right. It's very clear that there are religious groups that

have very distinctive and particular views about this. There

is one possibility that it's not so far been discussed which is

effectively for the state to withdraw itself to some extent from

the institution of marriage to say we are going to have a form of

association that's available there, whether it's called civil

partnership, that... That good enough for you? No, there's a

broader principle, equality under the law. Lesbian and gays in

Scotland deserve equality under the law, the same law should apply to

them. It's a separate institution. I just made the point that I cannot

under the universal declaration of human rights practice my faith in

terms of my marriage because it's ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

Between a man and a woman which is where it started if you go all the

way back... It's not where it started. Genesis... We are out of