I MUCH appreciated the contribution by our Primus, the Most Rev David Chillingworth, on the debate about independence for Scotland ("Churches have an opportunity to discuss place of faith in society", The Herald, June 5).
However I consider that concerns about the specialness of Scottish society are a secondary – albeit important – issue.
The primary issue for the social doctrine of the church is to consider what best makes for human flourishing and the common good. Is an independent Scotland likely to facilitate or hinder such flourishing?
An independent Scotland would control its own defence policy. This would be most unlikely to include a continuing commitment to the nuclear deterrent. All the major churches in Scotland have called for the ending of Trident and opposed the renewal programme.
It could also lead to Scotland no longer being a member of Nato, an alliance which is prepared to use weapons of mass destruction (the morality of which is highly questionable) and which has been used as a support for illegal or unjust post-imperial forays outwith Europe. One may admire the courage and commitment of British troops whilst at the same time questioning British military involvement in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
The economy is a crucial area. How could an independent Scotland help or hinder human flourishing? It is at least arguable that a Scottish government with full economic powers could manage the Scottish economy so that people took priority over the demands of high finance. The resources that Scotland has, from the quality of its education to whisky, tourism and energy, could be used to sustain an economy geared to the production of socially useful goods and services. The current emphasis on developing a renewable energy industry is an example of what could happen.
An independent Scotland could run a more humane benefits system driven by response to human need rather than by efforts to cut public expenditure. Indeed in some areas an independent Scotland would be likely to increase public expenditure and value public service.
Immigration policy could also become more humane, with a greater recognition of the value of overseas students, of people working temporarily in Scotland, of the importance of strengthening family life by enabling families to live together and by a more generous and less xenophobic attitude to refugees and asylum seekers than that displayed by the Westminster Government.
On grounds of subsidiarity, there is a strong argument for an independent Scotland but with the recognition that an independent Scotland should play its full part in both European and international affairs.
I would argue that the primary considerations for independence are whether or not it fosters or hinders human flourishing. However, in the process people in Scotland need to maintain an inclusive view so that there is no lurch towards sectarianism. At present Scottish nationalism is broadly inclusive and Scotland is a place of multiple identities. I believe these multiple identities could cope with an independent Scotland, or with a federal United Kingdom or with some form of the present dispensation but with greater powers for the Scottish Parliament.
Solidarity is the balancing component to subsidiarity in the church's social teaching. The churches and faith communities in Scotland will need to work hard to ensure that nationalism does not become exclusivist and Unionism does not retreat into denigrating the capacity of Scotland to govern itself.
Rev David Mumford,
St Andrew's Rectory,
9 Castle Street,
Brechin.
THE petition to Edinburgh City Council to remove religious observance (RO) from schools has raised the question of whether abolishing it in one education authority is a good way to spend £10m during austerity. As a mother and the chairwoman of Secular Scotland, I say of course not. The problem with the current provisions under the Education Act of 1980 is that it requires ludicrous levels of resources to change it.
We at Secular Scotland, on the other hand, have a petition lodged with the Scottish Parliament which would change RO to require parents to opt in. This leaves it intact for those who want it but ensures parents will be given real freedom to choose, along with the information to make the choice, something which does not happen now, despite being required by law.
Only 20% of parents are informed by the school that they can opt out, and doing so is often actively discouraged, with no provision made for those who do. Sometimes parents' wishes are ignored and children made to feel as if they are being punished.
By supporting our petition, parents can keep RO if they want it. The changes would be made once only, at parliamentary level, with no wasted resources and the provision would be the same everywhere in Scotland, parents better informed, and kids happier.
The petition is at scottish.parliament.uk /gettinginvolved /petitions/ religiousobservance.
Caroline Lynch,
Secular Scotland,
58a Broughton Street,
Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article