George Kerevan: Choosing ground is half the battle

EVENTS, as Harold Macmillan noted, are the bugaboo of even the best-laid political plans. Thus George Osborne’s scheme to clear the deficit by 2014 went down in flames with Tuesday’s grim autumn statement. Ditto the SNP’s referendum juggernaut, which had left the Westminster parties floundering only to see it hit an unexpected roadblock in the shape of the churches and gay marriage.

Yesterday, even the normally liberal Church of Scotland appeared to add its veto on same-sex marriage, in a reply to the SNP government’s consultation document.

However, in characteristic fashion, the Kirk based its reservations on the “speed with which the government is proceeding on this issue”, suggesting that the national debate on the issue was “underdeveloped”. Well, not any longer.

Where does this turn of events leave that grand strategist, Alex Salmond? At the start of the 21st century, same-sex marriage has a way of dividing electorates as no other. That’s because it’s not only – or primarily – about gay rights. This is identity politics writ large when living standards have started to decline for the first time since 1945, and when the cultural certainties of everyone over 40 have been blown to smithereens.

The SNP is not used to having its gut liberalism rebound on it. Also, this is a party that has shown iron discipline over the past decade. So the sight of Gordon Wilson, the SNP’s former and much respected leader, picketing Holyrood on Wednesday to protest at gay marriage rights was almost shocking.

Mr Wilson’s warning – that proceeding with gay marriage rights could cost the SNP the referendum – made it doubly so.

Such fears are probably exaggerated. Scotland’s attitude to homosexuality has changed dramatically in the past decade – for the better.

In 2000, when the Clause 28 debate on teaching about homosexuality in schools was raging, the Scottish Social Attitudes study found that 48 per cent of Scots believed same-sex relationships were wrong. Last year, that had dropped to 27 per cent.

True, a majority of religious people are still uncomfortable with same-sex relationships. Even here attitudes are shifting: in the past five years, the percentage of religious-minded folk opposing homosexuality had fallen from 64 to 57. Why? Because increasingly we tend to know folk who are gay (or Muslim, or black). Familiarity is the enemy of prejudice.

According to the latest social attitudes survey, 69 per cent of Scots agree that gay men and women have the right to marry. Which may explain why that anti-gay marriage demonstration on Wednesday attracted only 200 people.

However, I am suspicious of that 69 per cent figure and suspect that if the issue of gay marriage becomes a big issue, attitudes will harden. So, General Salmond can’t afford to ignore the issue.

Here’s my response to Mr Wilson, a man I greatly admire. (And can I put on record that it is a disgrace that he was voted off the board of Dundee Citizens Advice Bureau because of his stand on this matter.)

Firstly, Mr Wilson, this is an issue about civil rights, not morality – something the SNP government needs to make clear before the political waters get muddied.

Under the 2004 Civil Partnership Act, same-sex couples have nearly the same rights as different-sex couples. The key difference is that it is expressly forbidden by law for the ceremony in a civil partnership to take place in religious premises, include religious vows, or be registered by a minister.

However, many gay couples – often co-religionists of those opposed to same-sex marriage – actually want to have a religious ceremony. Surely, a gay Church of Scotland couple should have the freedom to wed in their own church, and to have that union registered by a celebrant of their own faith.

Equally, no religious body is being forced to sanctify or officiate over marriages it does not want to, a move that would split the SNP and provoke open conflict between church and state. But for those of one religious interpretation to deny equal rights to those of another regarding marriage vows is indefensible.

Will sanctifying same-sex weddings weaken the institution of marriage? There were only 465 civil partnerships registered in Scotland in 2010. On the other hand, there were 28,480 different-sex marriages, so I hardly think the institution is threatened. The more folk who want to join an institution, the healthier it is.

Mr Wilson, you are also worried that now is the wrong time for the SNP government raise this thorny issue. You say: “All they are doing is alienating people and you don’t want to alienate people on the eve of an important referendum where every vote will count.”

But surely it is only honest for the SNP to say where it stands on same-sex marriage before any referendum. That said, expect Mr Salmond, the great communicator, to be pressing a lot of flesh with Scotland’s religious hierarchy in the coming months.

Will the SNP’s opponents seek to use the party’s stance on same-sex marriage against it? I don’t doubt it, Mr Wilson. As I write, the Scottish Labour website carries the banner headline: “Salmond and SNP stuck in the past on gay marriage”.

Any reasonable person reading this misleading sentence is meant to conclude that the First Minister and the SNP are anti-gay marriage, when they are the opposite. But Scottish Labour has always fished in murky waters and it paid the price for such negativity last May.

As we saw in the Clause 28 debate, the gay rights issue can bite in Scottish politics. Added to that, in bad times people are prone to seek scapegoats or hide in the illusory security of conservative values.

The danger for the SNP would be to run away from this fight, which would not only split the party but suggest the party’s social democratic vision is skin deep.

My bet is that Scotland has changed for the better in its social attitudes, and that by the time the Church of Scotland General Assembly comes around, the Kirk will exhibit more Christian charity.

• George Kerevan is a former SNP candidate for the Scottish Parliament