Here We Go Again

A year ago I posted about the treatment being meted out to Kate Forbes in the SNP leadership contest because she is a Christian who actually dares to believe things. A year on and Humza Yousaf has proven to be a disaster and has lost his job as a consequence. The SNP need to find another new leader.

At time of writing, there are no declared candidates. There has been a lot of noise, but for the moment nobody has actually put their name forward.

And already the monstering of Kate Forbes has begun.

As with last time, the tone of that monstering is extremely important, and of extreme concern - because Kate Forbes is being decried as some horrific far-right bigot based on her having expressed what are, ultimately, some fairly mainstream Christian views.

I said before that if Kate Forbes was somehow barred from standing, or was ultimately pressurized into dropping out of the race, then I was done with both the SNP and indeed with independence - I have no interest in voting for a country where every minority is welcomed and respected except for mine.

Unfortunately, things have rather moved on since then; unless and until Yousaf's horrific Hate Crimes legislation is repealed I'm done with Scottish politics as a whole. (That's yet another example of well-meaning but atrociously-drafted legislation from Holyrood. It needs scrapped.)

But, again, if the monstering of Kate Forbes is such that she is somehow barred from standing, or she throws her hat into the ring and is then 'persuaded' to drop out, then there's no way back for the SNP. If she chooses not to run, fine; if she runs and is defeated, fine. But I'm watching them closely, and they are on their absolute last chance - get this wrong, and there's no way back for them.

Religion in Bute House

On his first night as First Minister, Humza Yousaf posted a picture on social media of him leading his family in prayer as they broke their fast (it being Ramadan, and he and his family being Muslim). Which, frankly, is entirely fine, and normal, and in a multicultural society is to be celebrated.

Of course, this was then met by wailing and gnashing of teeth from certain quarters on social media. Often, the refrain was "if Kate Forbes had won, and posted a picture of a Christian prayer meeting, would the response have been the same?"

Well, leaving aside the fact that she would have been unlikely to do so, two quick things:

1. There's no actual evidence to suggest that the response wouldn't have been broadly supportive. Granted, there would be some people on social media taking umbrage at the whole thing... but then, that's no different either.
2. Even if the response had been wildly different, though, that's not a valid criticism of Humza Yousaf - it's a reflection of the intolerance of some sections of our society, and especially on social media.

Hopefully, this extremely intolerant focus on the religious convictions, or lack thereof, of the two highest-profile candidates in the recent contest will prove to be a very short-lived thing. Because if we really are the tolerant and inclusive society that we like to think we are, it really shouldn't matter.

Of all the things Humza Yousaf has done in his time in politics, that is one of the least worthy of remark.

The Sticking Point

I should preface what I'm about to say by stating that I disagree with just about everything Kate Forbes said at the start of this week. I do believe that the GRR bill is fatally flawed, but that's a matter of detail rather than intention. (I do also think, though am not certain, that the UK government it legally in the right with their challenge, but that's another matter.) However, I'm inclined to the view that legislating for equal marriage was one of the very few good things that David Cameron actually did in office, and that the corresponding law in Scotland was equally good. And so on and so forth.

However, the treatment that has been meted out to Kate Forbes as a result of that has been disgraceful. And make no mistake, despite John Swinney's claims to the contrary it was entirely about her Christian beliefs - if Forbes wasn't the candidate then none of this would even have been raised, and the media simply wouldn't dare to grill Humza Yousaf over his Muslim faith in anything like the same terms as they've handled Forbes.

The upshot of all of that is this: there is now, I have no doubt, significant pressure being applied to Kate Forbes to 'persuade' her to drop out of the race. I have no doubt that there is equally significant pressure being applied to those who might back her to withdraw their nominations.

But here's the thing: If Kate Forbes is forced out of the race due to her Christian beliefs, the SNP will never again see another vote from me.

If she stands and loses, then that's absolutely fine - that's democracy in action. But she needs to be allowed to stand.

And that goes for voting for independence, too. I want no part of a modern, tolerant, inclusive Scotland in which every religious minority is welcome, except one. And where we only throw Christians to metaphorical lions.

The Return of Lent

Due to Covid, and the various stresses of life, I have skipped Lent for the previous two years. Now that things seem to be settling a bit, I've decided that this year it is time to give it a go again.

Of course, the notion of Lent is that one should give something up, and that that something should necessarily hurt, at least a little - it is, after all, supposed to be a sacrifice. So a few years ago I concluded that the thing to give up was coffee. As of Wednesday, therefore, that will be cut for a few weeks.

Unless it turns out to be impossible to stick to that. But then, I managed to give up on Irn Bru for a good long time, so it should be okay. I think.

#9: "Sea Lord", by Bernard Cornwell

Rule-lawyering Lent

So, I got to the bottom of my Lent issue. It turns out that the reason the "40 days and 40 nights" runs for more than six weeks is that Sundays aren't included. Apparently, these are always considered celebratory days in the Christian calendar, and so cannot be included in Lent. Which has both an upside and a downside. On the one hand, it means that Lent does not finish on the 6th of April (as previously believed), but rather at dawn on the 8th. On the other, this presumably means that the prohibitions associated with Lent don't apply on Sundays - I could have been drinking Irn Bru all along.

And therein lies my issue with the whole notion of Lent, at least as it is currently practiced. Or, perhaps rather, at least as it is currently practiced by me.

I've given up Irn Bru for Lent. It's really hard. Except... I've adapted by drinking Sprite instead. And Pepsi. And Coke. And many other drinks in the "sugar-water" genre. Some sacrifice!

Plus, of course, there isn't any nutritional value in these drinks at all. Giving them up shouldn't be any sacrifice - it's a pure gain. In effect, the 'sacrifice' of giving them up amounts to stopping slapping yourself in the face on a daily basis - it's good for you.

Besides, here in the West we live in absurd luxury, at least comparitively speaking. The sacrifice of giving up Irn Bru is absurdly trivial, especially when you consider that a single can has a higher calorific content than a great many people get in an entire day.

I think there is some small benefit in simply maintaining the discipline over the six weeks. And there's some small benefit in the symbolism, especially if it makes you more conscious of your comparitive wealth. Finally, there's a very significant benefit if this gives rise to a genuine lifestyle change - a six week break from some bad habit could potentially be enough to break it permanently.

But, considered purely as a sacrifice? No, it's trivial.

Anyway, I'm now pondering the notion of an "Extreme Lent" for next year (or, as people who actually observed it would call it: Lent). To whit, for the period from Ash Wednesday through to dawn on Easter Sunday, giving up:

• Eggs
  
• Cream
  
• Butter (and margarines)
  
• Bacon
  
• Chocolate
  
• Irn Bru, Coca Cola, and all other drinks in the 'sugar water' genre
  
• Sugar
  
• Chips (well, real chips, anyway. Oven chips would be fine)
  
• Cheese
  
• Cakes

And whatever else I've forgotten.

Basically, my philosophy (as always) amounts to: do it properly, or don't do it at all.

That sounds like a challenge...

Prayer at Council Meetings

So, the Secular Society have managed to have a ban imposed on prayers being offered at council meetings in England and Wales, and now have councils in Scotland in their sights.

Bluntly, the simple fact that it was the Secular Society that brought this case was reason enough to tell them to sod off. Now, if it was someone who was actually participating that those meetings, that would be another thing, but this case was brought by fundamentalists specifically to cause trouble - and that should not be humoured.

And besides, the judge got it wrong - in this country we do not have any official separation of church and state. On the contrary, we have an official state religion. That being the case, offering prayers is not, in fact, inappropriate.

Now, having said that, we do live in a pluralistic society, and I have in the past noted that it is the job of our government (local and national) to operate in the interest of all the people, not just those we happen to agree with. So, that does raise the question: should prayers be offered at council meetings?

And the answer, actually, is "no, not in an official capacity". And it's that 'official capacity' that is rather important.

See, it comes down to the order of events. If the meeting is called to order and then the first item on the agenda is prayers, this effectively means that anyone attending the meeting is expected to be present for those prayers. In effect, those prayers are being imposed on council employees who have the right to believe differently (or not at all). Which genuinely isn't right.

On the other hand, if the prayers are offered first and then the meeting is called to order, then it's a different matter: that's just a bunch of council employees who happen to be in one of the council rooms holding prayers. There is no obligation on others to join, and they're not disrupting anything. (And the counter-argument "they should be working" doesn't work... find me a council employee who spends 100% of their working day on-task, without a single off-topic conversation, dealing with a non-work email, or other distraction. Hell, find me any employee anywhere in the country of whom that is true.)

In any case, holding prayers as the first item in the meeting (official or otherwise) is actually a really efficient use of time. As anyone who has to attend staff meetings, or review meetings, or, really, any kind of meeting can tell you, the moment you schedule a meeting to be attended by more than one person, you lose any hope of it starting on time. There is always someone who is late. Always.

So, schedule your meeting for 2 (say). Start the prayers at 2, sharp. And then, at five minutes past, when people are actually ready to start, call the meeting to order.

Et voila! The prayers are in for those who want them, the people who don't want them have an easy opt-out, and the time that otherwise would have been wasted (and it would, to pretend otherwise is a lie) has been used productively.

Done.