Aon rud nach eil na “h-adhartaich” ‘s e adhartach – sheall Padraig Harvie sin

Chan urrainn dhomh-sa a ràdh càite am bi Pàdraig Harvie a’ cur seachad ùine no ann an cuideachd cò, ach saoilidh mi gum bu chòir dha dol a-mach beagan a bharrachd na tha.

[English-language version]

Bu chòir ùine gu leòr a bhith aige a-nis co-dhiù agus uallach ministeir ann an Riaghaltas na h-Alba air a thoirt bhuaithe, ged nach b’ ann gu deimhinne ga dheòin.

Faodaidh sinn beagan maitheanais a thoirt dha daoine a tha ann an àrd-dhreuchdan ma dh’fhàsas iad beagan searbh is bleideach mu bhith a’ call an obrach. Tha fèin-aithne is mòr-chùis anns an neach-phoileataigs as fheàrr.

An dèidh sin, bha e gu math suarach dha cur às leth Ceit Fhoirbheis gum buinn i do linn eile, air sgàth g’eil i na Crìosdaidh.

Ann an saoghal sradagach nam poileataigs, chan e an rud as miosa a-riamh a chaidh a ràdh, ach ‘s ann a thug e fìor dhroch shealladh air fhèin, le bhith ag a ràdh nach bu chòir dha cuideigin aig a bheil creideamh mar a tha aig Ceit Fhoirbheis a bhith ann an dreuchd phoblach.

Tha mi an ìre mhath cinnteach dhan mhòr chuid a dhaoine, nuair a chuala iad i a’ ag ràdh gu bheil i airson deamocrasaidh agus toil na Pàrlamaid a leantainn, gun robh sin gu leòr; ged nach aontaicheadh iad rithe mu nithean pearsanta mar phòsaidhean gèidh agus a leithid. Tha sinn uile diofraichte, gluais air adhart.

Ach, chan e sin a th’ ann dha cuid, dha na “h-adhartaich” (mar a th’ aca orra fhèin), ged nach eil iad a’ dearbhadh ach gur iadsan a tha cumhang nam beachd.

Gu cinnteach, tha gu leòr a tha aineolach mu dè th’ ann a bhith nad Chrìosdaidh. Ach chan eil ach aon fhacal ann dha cuideigin a tha ag iarraidh casg a chur air neach eile a bhith ann an dreuchd phoblach, seach gu bheil beachdan eadar-dhealaichte aca, agus aig an aon àm a’ toirt a’ chreids’ gu bheil iad ag iarraidh saoghal fosgailte nas fharsainge: ‘s e sin, hiopocrasaidh.

Ma tha caraidean Crìosdaidh aig Pàdraig Harvie, bu chòir dhaibh a thoirt gu aon taobh agus innse dha cho faoin ‘s tha a bhriathran. Tha mi an amharas nach eil.

‘S tha taobh eile air an seo cuideachd, taobh a tha nas cudromaiche buileach.

Can gun robh e a’ bruidhinn mu Mhuslamach, seach Crìosdaidh. Mar tòrr Crìosdaidhean, tha mòran a tha a’ leanntainn Islam an aghaidh phòsaidhean gèidh agus feise sam bith taobh a-muigh suidheachaidhean pòsta.

Am biodh Pàdraig Harvie air seasamh sa Phàrlamaid agus na thuirt e a ràdh mu Mhuslamach? Tha fhios nach biodh. Tha fhios nach gabhadh e air.

Tha mòran air a ràdh cho math ‘s a bha e cuideigin mar Humza Yousaf fhaicinn ann an dreuchd a’ Chiad Mhinisteir. Chan eil e cho fada bhon uair sin gum biodh e do-dhèanta dha cuideigin bhon dualchas aige. Tha an aon rud fior mu Anas Sarwar.

Tha sin a’ sealltainn mar a tha Alba an-diugh air atharrachadh agus i nas measgaichte agus nas fhosgailte – ach ma gheibheadh na “h-adhartaich”, mas fhìor, agus Padraig Harvie an toil, ‘s ann a bhiodh sinn a’ dol air ais agus a’ cur casg air daoine. Cò a-rèisd a bhuinneas do linn eile?

English-language version:

I can’t pretend to know what social circles Patrick Harvie moves in, but I think he needs to get out a bit more. At least he’s got a wee bit more time now, with the shackles of ministerial responsibility having been removed, albeit forcibly.

I suppose even those who occupy high office can be forgiven for a little petulance and a tantrum when things go wrong. The lot of a politician, after all, necessarily comes with a degree of ego and self-righteousness. But, still, to describe Kate Forbes as belonging to the 1950s was laughable, and not in the way he intended.

In the rough and tumble of political discourse, it was hardly the worst slur in the world, but to suggest that someone who follows the Christian beliefs of Forbes should be nowhere near office shows that it is he who is the intolerant one. I suspect most reasonable people, having heard Forbes say she is a democrat and accepts the will of parliament, would have been happy to accept that, even if profoundly disagreeing with her personal beliefs over gay marriage, etc. Move on, we’re all different after all.

But not, it seems, for the self-styled “progressives” who have developed an unfortunate intolerant streak. I suppose it’s understandable for some to be ignorant of what it means to be a Christian – a basic principle being that all humans are created equal in the eyes of God – but to try and deny someone’s right to hold public office because they hold different views to yours, while supposedly desiring a more open and diverse society, shows incredible levels of hypocrisy.

If Harvie does have any Christian friends at all, they might want to take him aside and gently point out the absurdity of his position. But I suspect his social circle reflects his views: devoid of diversity.

But there’s another, probably far more important, side to this, too. Let’s say Forbes was not a Christian. Let’s say she was a devout Muslim. Like many professing Christians, many practising Muslims do not believe in sex before marriage or gay marriage. Would Harvie really have stood up in parliament and said what he did to a devout Muslim? He wouldn’t have dared.

Much has been made in a positive sense of Humza Yousaf being able to ascend to the post of First Minister in Scotland, something which would have been impossible just a generation ago for someone from his background. Anas Sarwar the same.

That is testament to Scotland today being far more open and diverse. The only ones threatening that are the illiberal “progressives” and their intolerance to others. Perhaps they are the ones who should be consigned to history.