Leaders: Stonewall row does not befit the new Scotland

IN HIS speech at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, which eloquently captured the spirit of the moment, Donald Dewar said the creation of the new democratic body was “about more than our politics and our laws”, adding: “This is about who we are, how we carry ourselves.”

Mr Dewar’s words have been frequently repeated – by politicians of all parties – as the devolution of power to Edinburgh he campaigned so long for has become part of our everyday 
political landscape, with Holyrood rather than Westminster playing an increasingly important place in our national life.

Would that both sides in the bitter dispute over same-sex marriage had born in mind the first First Minister’s admonition before they embarked on the latest exchanges over an issue which perhaps more any issue, has so divided and polarised opinion in Scotland.

The latest dispute has been sparked by the awarding, if that is the appropriate word, of the “bigot of the year” title to Keith O’Brien by the gay rights organisation, Stonewall. It was Stonewall’s response to the cardinal’s outspoken attacks on the proposal by the Scottish Government, supported by a majority of MSPs of all parties, to legislate for same-sex marriage.

Stonewall’s action led to an acrimonious, some might say poisonous, debate between its spokesman and a spokesman for the Catholic Church yesterday, which did neither side of the 
argument any favours.

However, what should give Stonewall pause for thought is the fact that the “award” has been condemned by Alex Salmond; brought a threat to withdraw sponsorship for Stonewall’s event by two major banks; and was criticised by Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, herself gay, who was booed for making her views clear at the ceremony, where she was named politician of the year.

In its defence, Stonewall has argued that Cardinal O’Brien has used language which can, it 
argues, be correctly described as bigoted.

In a recent newspaper article, the cardinal wrote that the proposal for same-sex marriage represented a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”. Yet however ill-conceived this is, Stonewall has gone beyond the pale in using the word “bigot”, a term widely seen as deeply offensive. It should immediately apologise and withdraw the “award”.

No-one would argue that, with views so deeply held, we should not have this discussion, but it is time for a more reasoned discourse – for both sides to argue cerrtainly, and with honest passion, but to rise above name-calling and personal abuse. This debate is about more than our politics and laws in Scotland. It is about who we are, and how we carry ourselves, and how we are seen by the wider world. Both Stonewall and the Catholic Church should acknowledge that wisdom, and behave accordingly.

Sorry apology from the police

IN A letter yesterday, Grampian Police claimed the force had behaved with the utmost impartiality over the arrest of two film-makers who were putting together the You’ve Been Trumped documentary. Given the furore over the police action, this

response is simply inadequate.

This is why. The two men were shown being confronted by two police officers as they filmed at the edge of Mr Trump’s golf course. They were ordered to shut off their camera. One was heard screaming as he was handcuffed and bundled into the back of a police car. The two men spent four hours in police cells on charges of breach of the peace. The charges were later dropped.

Most impartial observers who saw the film might conclude the police were, at best, heavy-handed, and, at worst, siding with the powerful Trump organisation against the legitimate rights of local protesters. However, to compound what appears to be a denial of the facts, the letter contains an apparent apology.

Chief Superintendent Ewan Stewart writes this: “Having reviewed all the available evidence, I can, however, understand why a member of the public could have perceived the police actions within the documentary as being rash and confrontational, and this has caused some concern.”

So there we have it. A classic, politician-style, non-apology apology. The chief superintendent is not actually apologising for anything the police did,

just for the perceptions of

the force being rash and confrontational. Film-maker Anthony Baxter yesterday called this “a kind of half-baked apology” and suggested the force was attempting to defend its “completely indefensible actions”. We agree with him.