Friday, 30 March 2012 22:37
By a Newsnet reporter
With Labour spectacularly losing the Bradford West by-election, the SNP published an analysis of polling evidence showing that all three Westminster party leaders – Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg – are even more unpopular in Scotland than they are in the English region containing Bradford.
George Galloway’s stunning by-election victory in Bradford West on Thursday left Labour reeling. The party had expected to hold the seat with a comfortable majority, but instead found their candidate, local man Imran Hussain, being crushed by a 36.59% swing to Mr Galloway. The final result saw the Labour candidate over 10,000 votes behind Mr Galloway who polled over twice as many votes as his Labour rival.
The seat was formerly considered a Labour safe seat. A by-election had been called after the sitting MP, Labour’s Marsha Singh, resigned due to a long-term illness. The catastrophic failure of Labour in the by-election calls into question the direction the party is taking under leader Ed Miliband. Despite what has been considered an appallingly bad week for the Conservatives after the Budget debacle, Labour is failing to benefit electorally from the popular backlash against the Tories.
“No question they are going to be seeing this as a disaster,” said Mark Wickham-Jones, an expert on the Labour Party from the University of Bristol.
“What is really disastrous for Labour is this could have been the best week since May 2010 and actually it turned in the space of a few hours into one of the worst.”
Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman admitted that the poll was disappointing for Labour, and said:
“It’s a very disappointing result. There’s no getting away from it. Twice as many people voted for Respect as voted for Labour and – we have to really understand – as recently as a week ago were saying they were going to support us and have been longstanding supporters and engaged with the Labour party, but when it came to the vote, voted for Respect.”
She added: “We are changing the Labour party and we are rebuilding and strengthening all around the country, but there’s a particular problem in Bradford, but I don’t want to jump to conclusions.”
Labour leader Ed Miliband also admitted that the result was “incredibly disappointing” and vowed that the party would “learn lessons” from the defeat.
Mr Miliband said: “It was an incredibly disappointing result for Labour in Bradford West and I am determined that we learn lessons of what happened.
“I’m going to lead that. I’m going to be going back to the constituency in the coming weeks to talk to people there about why this result happened.
“Clearly there were local factors, but I also say only four out of 10 people voted for the three mainstream political parties.
“We’ve got to understand the reasons why that happened in Bradford.
“Above all it reinforces for me something that I’ve emphasised throughout my leadership which is that we need to be engaged and rooted in every community of this country.
“We need to show to people that our politics, that Labour politics, can make a difference to people’s lives.”
However under Mr Miliband’s leadership the Labour party has failed to make an impact on voters. His personal polling ratings continue to be disastrous, and in Scotland he is performing even worse than his poor performance in the North of England, which was so dramatically illustrated by Mr Galloway’s spectacular by-election victory.
The latest YouGov polling on how well or badly the UK party leaders are performing shows that the UK party leaders’ ratings are worse in Scotland than in the North of England – and worse in Scotland compared to the UK as a whole. The figures show that Ed Miliband has a negative rating of -28% in the North of England – but an even worse -39% in Scotland.
The leaders of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems are also received much more poorly in Scotland than they are in the North of England. David Cameron has a negative rating of -19% in the North of England – and a much worse -48% in Scotland. Nick Clegg has a negative rating of -46% in the North of England and -61% in Scotland.
The most recent figures for Alex Salmond – the Panelbase poll published in the Sunday Times on 5 February – showed a positive rating of +17%: the only leader at Holyrood or Westminster to have a positive rating.
The latest breakdowns for YouGov show that Labour has a 10 point lead over the Tories across the UK, and a 31 point lead over the Tories in the North of England. However, in Scotland Labour trails the SNP by 5%: with the SNP at 38%, and Labour at 33%.
Commenting, SNP Westminster Leader and SNP Campaign Director Angus Robertson MP said:
“If Labour are losing parliamentary seats in a heartland region like the North of England, it confirms that they are in crisis north and south of the Border.
“The three Westminster parties are clearly deeply unpopular in Bradford. And the latest polling figures shows that all three UK party leaders – Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg – are even more unpopular in Scotland than they are in the North of England.
“The latest YouGov sample also indicates that the SNP are even ahead of Labour in Scotland for a Westminster General Election.
“This by-election result is an unmitigated disaster for Labour – and a total embarrassment for Ed Miliband in a week when the Tories and coalition government are on the back foot over the granny tax, petrol and pasties.
“And for Labour’s ratings to be more than 25 points worse in Scotland than in the North of England shows how far Scotland has moved on.
“It is clear that the people of Scotland are rightly appalled by Labour agreeing ‘100 per cent’ with the Tories on Scotland’s future.
“Ed Miliband’s decision to join in a toxic pact with the Tories to stand in the way of job-creating powers and more responsibilities for the Scottish Parliament must be a key factor in this overwhelming negative verdict against him from Scots voters, who now know that a Yes vote to independence is the only sure way to secure these job-creating powers.
“It’s no wonder that Scottish voters have deserted Labour in droves, and no wonder that Ed Miliband’s ratings are plumbing previously unimaginable depths for a Labour leader in Scotland.
“Labour has no credibility and nothing useful to say on the constitution, on the economy, or on any of the issues that matter to households in Scotland and, increasingly, in England as well.”
Comments
2012-03-31 00:16
Galloway said: “By the grace of God, we have won the most sensational victory in British political history …
Some “Bradford Spring” guardian.co.uk/…/…
“Galloway climbed on top of a grey car and was handed a megaphone to preach to the assembled faithful.
“All praise to Allah!” he yelled, to jubilant cries of “Allah Allah!” And on it went. “Long live Iraq! Long live Palestine!”
2012-03-31 00:33
very first expression of a misplaced religious influx in the voting intentions.
Surely Northern Ireland has the monopoly of ‘misplaced religious voting intentions’
2012-03-31 07:03
2012-03-31 12:30
While we may consider that we live in a secular society, the Bradford result shows that the immigrant population, and in particular the Moslem community does not necessarily share that view
The population of Bradford is fairly stable with the majority being at least 2nd generation, if not 3rd or 4th English Asian. Hardly immigrant.
2012-03-31 11:24
I read somewhere that they do not think he has became a muslim yet as he called for his supporters to join his battle bus on a celebratory spin at 12 noon. Someone asked about Friday prayers and time hastily changed to 2.30pm. It was reckoned that if he has converted he would have remembered.
2012-03-31 11:50
Try not to fall for the media driven underlying paranoid racist theme of some comments of posters in the media is that Galloway’s election is some how evidence of some Asian Muslim plot to take over the UK.
These posters seem to have missed the fact that it was a labour candidate of Asian and muslim decent who was REJECTED by the Bradford electorate of whom a significant proportion are British Asian muslims in favour of a white non muslim Scotsman who happens to have been born into a catholic family
Not exactly what you would have expected in such a dasterdly plot
2012-03-31 12:56
Of course, it does smell of excuses. Galloway could well be right when he claims that the electorate are simply fed up with the three main parties.
2012-03-31 00:59
2012-03-31 01:46
I am a priest, and my prayers in Church and in the quietness of my own are always for love and social justice. My time spent alongside political colleagues does not impose my faith on them.
I am always a little bit concerned when politicians claim that they have God on their side. I would evidence this because politicians talk of us and them, God I suspect, is concerned with us and all the rest – who are merely more of “us”.
I would suggest that God is much bigger than politics not vice versa. If our politicians were to quietly and humbly consider their role in taking care of the homeless, the sick, the hungry, the refugee, the widow, the orphan and the poor rather than seeing who can pay the greatest sum of money to have dinner with them we might have a better society. But if they crow about their actions then they have had their reward.
Jesus said something about doing things for the least of society. I don’t see much of that coming from Westminster. I do see a better social contract for the poor and vulnerable from Holyrood (Note the name!) and that is why I will back Alex Salmond and his team. They show compassion for the vulnerable and their ethics are not just about making money for themselves and their cronies. Their ethics are about making things better. I think that is a good start.
2012-03-31 07:18
Many previous discussions on this site have discussed the difference between Faith and organised religion
However I do accept the need to reflect on what a better society means but for me that is an inward reflection not listening to anyone who wishes to guide my vote.
Issues such as Gay relationships, Hanging, Abortion, Birth Control, Sexual equlity, Racial equality etc are matters of judgement by all of us with debate NOT direction.
We cannot forget the manner in which the Christian faith was misused across history from the Crusades (including the Cathars in France/Spain) to South America etc.
Inward reflection on a decent society yes – people in funny hats and robes, No! (House of Lords a good example of religion and politics misplaced.)
2012-03-31 09:33
Rather than cause a scene, I walked out of the lecture as i felt that ethics were for the individual and someone with a decent ethical code would always succeed against one without.
Ethics does not need christianity. It only needs an open mind and a sense of fairness.
2012-03-31 09:37
All religions play no part in the running of the state – simple as that.
2012-03-31 11:30
What does matter surely is that we practice the basic values of respect for others and care for those in need. In who’s name we do this is irrelevant. Like RoBell, these beliefs are the basis of my political convictions too and why I cannot support any political party who’s policies favour any one narrow section of our society. It’s why I am a proud member of the SNP.
2012-03-31 13:18
Perhaps I might suggest that faith should be the foundation and guiding principle for our political action. Our political actions should not be overtly religious. I would suggest that God is much bigger than politics not vice versa.
Sorry but religion (or any other supernatural beliefs) should not be connected with politics. Witness the radical Islamists or the right-wing Christian sects in the USA and you can see it is a poisonous mixture.
Compassion, ethics and a fairer society can exist without believing in the supernatural – in fact, beliefs like that tend to cause divisions between all the different (and conflicting) “faith groups”.
2012-03-31 14:06
Perhaps I might suggest that faith should be the foundation and guiding principle for our political action. Our political actions should not be overtly religious. Whereas it is often right when chasing for justice love and equality within an economic and political structure such as society that our religious actions should be political: feeding the poor, challenging why the poor have no food, or have to pay so much of their taxes when the rich pay so little. Standing up for asylum seekers and refugees and welcoming newcomers to be fully part of our communities, supporting and caring for those who are in prison – those are overtly political actions with a solid but covert foundation in my faith.
I am a priest, and my prayers in Church and in the quietness of my own are always for love and social justice. My time spent alongside political colleagues does not impose my faith on them.
I am always a little bit concerned when politicians claim that they have God on their side. I would evidence this because politicians talk of us and them, God I suspect, is concerned with us and all the rest – who are merely more of “us”.
I would suggest that God is much bigger than politics not vice versa. If our politicians were to quietly and humbly consider their role in taking care of the homeless, the sick, the hungry, the refugee, the widow, the orphan and the poor rather than seeing who can pay the greatest sum of money to have dinner with them we might have a better society. But if they crow about their actions then they have had their reward.
Jesus said something about doing things for the least of society. I don’t see much of that coming from Westminster. I do see a better social contract for the poor and vulnerable from Holyrood (Note the name!) and that is why I will back Alex Salmond and his team. They show compassion for the vulnerable and their ethics are not just about making money for themselves and their cronies. Their ethics are about making things better. I think that is a good start.
Where a person is comitted to the content of a book, they fail to see beyond the covers . I have found people of the cloth to be very narrow in their ways and quite intolerant of others so . Compassion and understanding are characteristics of our species and evolve with time and circumstances. An example of this intolerance was when a minister refused to marry a couple because the father of the bride was a free mason. The church is expected to provide leadership to the people, it has failed on every count. Ramble over
2012-03-31 15:08
2012-03-31 05:12
Whilst I applaud your political beliefs, and in many ways reflect my own, I certainly dont require religion as a basis. There is much that repels me in religion.
Examples such as the over-reaction to the tented village outside St Paul’s in London; the religious right who persecute women who want freedom to have or not have a child; in the US just now there is a candidate that is standing for the presidency whose religious belief says that even if a woman is raped she has no right to an abortion; Lets not even talk about the child abuse that goes on in many churches with the acquiescence of their leadership. And that’s before history is even taken into account.
So far, other than blair hinting at religion guiding his hand, this country has kept religion in the background of politics. Lets keep it that way. After all, how many of the population actually attend churches?
2012-03-31 08:05
I suspect there are a good few would like to do so nowadays.
2012-03-31 10:05
Some of the latest posts below suggest you are correct and that there is a desire for a return to the world of being burned for heresy!
2012-03-31 14:08
A few hundred years ago repeating that in the town square would have had you burned for heresy.
I suspect there are a good few would like to do so nowadays.
Not enough rope to go round
2012-03-31 11:13
No, I am saying almost the opposite; if one is religious and expresses a faith then their is an ontological “goodness” – it is ineluctable. It is part of the deal. Whereas those without a faith do not use that extra measuring stick by which to assess or measure their actions. It is delightful when people of no faith are gentle kind loving generous open and committed to social justice. It is a failure when people of faith are not.
“There is much that repels me in religion.”
Thank you, yes there is much in religion and its use that repels me too but I stand, albeit at the edges, and choose to engage with those of faith and challenge very solidly when love is not at the essence and centre of action. When a Police Chaplain, I used to say I am the only person who comes into the station and will always talk of love. I very rarely chastised the officers in my care, I often told off my congregations when they were less than gentle or loving with each other or the world around them.
Examples such as the over-reaction to the tented village outside St Paul’s in London;
Indeed it was a disgrace the way it took the Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s the length of time that it did for them to “support” the protestors. Do not forget the stand taken by Giles Fraser who turned the police away in the first instance. He gave the instruction that they should clear from the area and when the police started to try to move protesters, Giles said to the police “No, I’m talking to you, the Police should clear from the area.” Giles’ support for the supporters cost him, and his young family, their home and livelihood. Giles is a man of honour and faith; a good example of what I mean by faith influencing political action
Luckily in Scotland we do not have the sort of Religious Right activity of which you mention. The problem there is perhaps lack of thinking, rather than the application of ethics. I am much of the mindset that faith and religious expression should function under the way one English cathedral Precentor uses a thurible (you know the fiery handbag thing on chains that wafts incense about), he chants under his breath:
“Can’t do any harm, might do some good. Can’t do any harm, might do some good…”
“Lets not even talk about the child abuse that goes on in many churches with the acquiescence of their leadership.” No, let’s DO talk about it ;Indeed it is true this has happened and it is to the shame and guilt of those involved. I would be cautious about suggesting that this was merely a problem for the Churches. Many social units where people live, from charitable institutions, to prisons, places of holiday to family households have been the scenes of abuse; physical, sexual, mental or verbal. It is right that we should “name the demon” but it may be naive to suggest that such activities only have taken place in church or faith settings.
However, once more many of the Churches have been at the vanguard of ensuring that good practice in Child Protection, and ensuring Safety of Vulnerable Adults is a fundamental priority.
“So far, other than Blair hinting at religion guiding his hand, this country has kept religion in the background of politics.”
I thought that was just what I was suggesting? On the topic of our erstwhile and oh so so disappointing ex PM, I am very glad if he has a faith because then he will have a lot of actions and decisions on which to ponder, and I suspect for which to be sorry. I would not for all the tea in China want to have his conscience.
And on your last point, more people go to Church, Synagogue, Gudwara, Mandir, Temple,or place of prayer and meditation than go to football matches, and still we have to put up with all that dreadful running around nonsense on Telly or Radio, whilst we search high and low for good, high quality educated religious programming.
2012-03-31 05:25
2012-03-31 07:30
Surely if they had positive as opposed to negative or stolen policies, then there would only be a matter of delivery to consider. What lessons, that they have abandoned their voter base in favor of big business and greed ?.
2012-03-31 08:48
For those who haven’t read this peice, my favourite it: “Last month, British Prime Minister David Cameron,……… set the tone for a possible pan-Britain unity campaign with a speech in Edinburgh that was hailed as his most important yet on the question of Scottish independence.”
2012-03-31 09:18
Scotland, which has its own legislature in Edinburgh that already exercises extensive authority over culture and other policy areas
2012-03-31 10:36
Canadians in general are very nice though. Especially the French Canadians, even though they’re widely hated elsewhere.
I have read one similar post to this on a comments section, complaining about the Scots ‘separating’.. But, a whole article? That’s just incredible. You’d hope people would do their research and learn that Scotland is a country and not a province. We have far more in common with a country controlled by the USSR than a province of Canada.
2012-03-31 13:36
Western Canada has always been “anti French” in their attitude.
AND there is no comparison between a French-speaking province in a federal Canada and Scotland’s desire for independence.
People who try and draw comparisons between them are talking a lot of rubbish.
2012-03-31 22:57
and the hilarious one from Tiawan www.youtube.com/…/
2012-03-31 08:19
I wonder what they will come up with after the Scottish council results in May ? Same same I suppose.
They are so thick, it is embarrasing.
2012-03-31 11:07
2012-03-31 08:35
It demonstrates once again how Scotland comes well down the UK pecking order in the greater scheme of things and is being short-changed by Labour.
Either way Labour are on a loser, it seems, and Scotland will be too if it sticks with them.
Labour should be concerned that one day they may want to be in power in an independednt Scotland, but the way they are behaving, particularly their self imposed rule of not agreeing with policies which would benefit Scotland because they have been initiated by the SNP, will not go down well. It shows them up as being self seeking and irresponsible.
It appears that they are so stupid that the SNP doesn’t even need to set political traps for them. Their position on minimum pricing of alcohol and their offer to come on board with the policy if the SG agree to claw back supermarket profits, is a case in point. This is just a face saving exercise. Their thinking behind that one is highly dubious in that they prefer not to support the alcohol bill, which will improve the health of people, because the supermarkets will gain some additional profits. It is putting the cart before the horse.
2012-03-31 11:10
Talk about joined up thinking!
2012-03-31 11:24
2012-03-31 12:57
2012-03-31 11:44
You are correct though in recognising the basis of the loss of their grass roots vote as the “New Labour” policy of courting the English middle class which Miliband has been unwilling to shake off. Scotland woke up to that a little earlier than the good folks in their English heartlands. When people see that it can be done elsewhere they too will believe that they can do it and so maybe Bradford is the rot starting to spread down south for them.
2012-03-31 08:47
2012-03-31 09:04
2012-03-31 09:15
a)Good
b)It couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of “politicians” (bearing in mind young innocents read newsnet I’ll refrain from making any pithier remarks)
PS Careful George – remember the old saw about pipers and who pays them. Enjoy your time back at the trough.
2012-03-31 09:17
2012-03-31 11:13
There’s nothing wrong with living by that philosophy regardless of your beliefs.
2012-03-31 09:34
2012-03-31 09:34
You don’t have to be religious to respect other people’s free right to be so.
The SNP Code of Conduct is admirable
(6) Every member has a responsibility not to discriminate on the ground of race,colour,gen der, religious belief or non-belief or sexual orientation.
Perhaps this should be employed on NewsNet
2012-03-31 10:19
Like another has said although not a christian I live my life as one with morals and compassion taught by my parents.. As a nationalist I find some of the posts nausating.
Of course we all have a way of expressing oneself that sometimes can be taken out of context..
2012-03-31 20:31
Indeed. I thought the initial post was well written by RoBell . Much humanity within his comments.
Like another has said although not a christian I live my life as one with morals and compassion taught by my parents.. As a nationalist I find some of the posts nausating.
Of course we all have a way of expressing oneself that sometimes can be taken out of context..
How about an opinion being the result of ones life experience, in other words every one is right as they see it which is very different to you are wrong but I respect your view (but you are still wrong). Putting people into categories or boxes is for those who wish to control the rest of us, it is small minded and I have had more than enough of them.
2012-03-31 11:52
RoBell’s original post and in his later response, was very reasoned and what came across very powerfully was the man’s humility and honesty. As I said in my own earlier post; it doesn’t matter if like RoBell we call what drives you to be decent “god” or not. What matters is how you behave.
2012-03-31 09:58
Could you clarify. Is it content or arguement?
I posted an alternative view but I would reject any suggestion that it fits your description. I note one post were it is in a slightly stronger wording but once again the view of an athiest is just as valid as that of a believer.
When someone disagrees with the status quo it does not make them wrong.
Who are your comments aimed at?
2012-03-31 10:25
the view of an athiest is just as valid as that of a believer.
The view of an atheist that religious people are silly idiots with a deep seated inadequacy problem is just as valid, yes, in that it has just as much supporting evidence as the religious have for their views.
2012-03-31 16:04
Perhaps we should.
2012-03-31 16:27
Oh, we do.
Perhaps we should concentrate on getting rid of the anachronistic second chamber of patronage and privilege, rather than worrying overmuch about which fluke of fortune was responsible for individual members being there.
2012-03-31 10:25
“You discriminate against me and I will look to respond.” – That’s the way we’re built, it’s called self-preservation.
In my opinion, it’s much better to study the situation, form an opinion then chose to avoid, but challenge, only if you must, as by definition you thereby must portray your own subjectivity.
The SNP are streets ahead of every other political party in approach and ethical standing towards politics and thereby, all people. That’s what the english-refusink and separatist labelling politicos can’t handle.
The Bradford election showed in stark reality what a vacuum exists in electoral choice and if the SNP had an English version they would walk-it in every coming election.
2012-03-31 13:45
Can I say that there are a couple of quite disgraceful posts – nay shameful and and unacceptable and intolerant posts – here on an entirely positive and generous post by RoBell. You don’t have to be religious to respect other people’s free right to be so. T
True but one of the nice things about atheists is that they don’t knock on your door and ask you not to believe in your god(s). If you have to worship some sort of supernatural deity ( or deities) try keeping to yourself and and don’t inflict your beliefs on other people.
2012-03-31 20:40
Quoting sneckedagain:
Can I say that there are a couple of quite disgraceful posts – nay shameful and and unacceptable and intolerant posts – here on an entirely positive and generous post by RoBell. You don’t have to be religious to respect other people’s free right to be so. T
True but one of the nice things about atheists is that they don’t knock on your door and ask you not to believe in your god(s). If you have to worship some sort of supernatural deity ( or deities) try keeping to yourself and and don’t inflict your beliefs on other people.
I agree, what any progressive country needs is just and sensible laws with judges to administer same. It is the laws that makes us equal, religion divides people (but you already know this).
2012-03-31 10:01
I think what has happened is that the poor and disadvantaged have nowhere else to turn. There is no difference between Old Tory and New Labour and the Lib Dems are just inconsequential now. There is no centre left party in England.
So who else could they vote for but George? To put it down to religious affiliation is, IMO, putting your head under the pillow until the bogeyman leaves.
2012-03-31 10:13
2012-03-31 10:23
2012-03-31 11:38
I think the problem with that assertion, mealer, is that it is often made as a definitive statement without pointing out the downside as you have. As you point out, most organised religions have similar codes, especially those of the God of Abraham which all have a common source.
The 10 commandments, which were cribbed from the Egyptian Book of the Dead almost verbatim, highlights this. The first 4 commandments are all about the honoring God. Thou Shall not Murder doesn’t even make it into the top 5.
But this thread isn’t about bashing Christianity and it’s close to becoming so. Whether Jesus was the son of God, or whether he even actually existed, the ethic of reciprocity, or Golden Rule, attributed to him is unarguably one of the best philosophies by which to live your life.
I took RoBell’s comments to be simply highlighting how much better we’d all be if our politicians bought into that maxim too.
2012-03-31 12:34
That is the key to a decent society not the lable of any one branch/organisation and the golden rule circle diagram includes societies who do not have a formal religion.
The common message in the centre of the diagram is the important point.
2012-03-31 12:55
“God helps those who help themselves!”
Wastemonster has been very good at that over the years!
2012-03-31 10:25
Freedom for all but the Scottish People.
The Billy Connelly of politics .. Another eejit..
As Matt McGinn said in reply to Connelly… Quote:
Keep London and yer money I prefer ma ain folk..
In reply to Connelly’s plenty dosh down here Matt..
2012-03-31 10:45
But, of course, I know what you mean.
Slainthe.
2012-03-31 10:56
2012-03-31 11:12
As above so below. From sub-atomic to planetary harmony. all by chance?
I agree with RoBell that the SNP are striving to help the needy and so have my vote.
For me Galloway has wasted his talent and has simply become an opportunist – for George.
Thanks for the Matt McGinn quote Puskas, i much respect wee Matt’s contributions to Scootish life through song.
“Three nights and a Sunday double time..”. comes to mind.
2012-03-31 13:18
Physicists now have a very good idea of the evolution of the universe backed up by evidence. Obviously there is stil huge amounts to learn but the gaps are getting smaller.
2012-03-31 20:46
I’m inclined to the view that people who declare that there is no creator, God if you prefer, are dodging the the issue. Could be that they are the silly -unthinking- idiots?
As above so below. From sub-atomic to planetary harmony. all by chance?
I agree with RoBell that the SNP are striving to help the needy and so have my vote.
For me Galloway has wasted his talent and has simply become an opportunist – for George.
Thanks for the Matt McGinn quote Puskas, i much respect wee Matt’s contributions to Scootish life through song.
“Three nights and a Sunday double time..”. comes to mind.
I take as an atheist I should feel less than your good self?
2012-03-31 11:35
The most intolerant people I have ever met are the militant atheists and secularists who, of course, know everything and assume they have some right to be insulting and patronising to those who have a religious faith.
2012-03-31 12:43
John
2012-03-31 13:59
Sorry M8 but I lived in the “deep south” of the USA for a few years and the wide variety of fundamentalist churches (all tax free corporations) there would scare you. They are locked into the dark ages with their weird and out of context interpretations of the bible.
While I was there one of the local churches had a fund raiser with a great display of donated firearms – the church billboard advertised it as “Buy a gun for God”. I much prefer our our jumble sales and bingo.
2012-03-31 20:48
Any person’s religious views or lack of them is an entirely personal matter. It is rarely germane to any topic here but if religion is relevant to any discussion here it is important that it is conducted in full tolerance of the views of perferctly intelligent and sensible person who take up a wide range of positions on it.
The most intolerant people I have ever met are the militant atheists and secularists who, of course, know everything and assume they have some right to be insulting and patronising to those who have a religious faith.
If that is your life experience then I must agree.
2012-03-31 12:28
Labour leader Ed Miliband also admitted that the result was “incredibly disappointing” and vowed that the party would “learn lessons” from the defeat.
Labour have an awful lot of lessons to learn. Curriculum for Excellence for labour politicians anyone?
2012-03-31 12:39
What did Winnie do to infuriate Labour?
She had the audacity to oust Labour,by winning a by-election for the SNP in a Labour stronghold, thereby challenging Labour’s- ‘Divine Right to Rule’- in Scotland.
Presumably,the move to independence for Scotland,threat ens the comfy unspoken arrangement between the two parties at Westminster—-and in so doing,Labour in Scotland dismally/shamefully ditched it’s principles DECADES ago.
Why any principled young person should join such a party,with simmering hate in parts of it’s body politic,is beyond me.
Social justice/compassion —not in the Labour Party it aint.
2012-03-31 12:52
I also wouldn’t be surprised if he accepted.
2012-03-31 12:52
2012-03-31 19:05
2012-03-31 13:55
On the issue of God / naegod: actions speak louder then words – my dad was of the view that prayer may be helpful but B’ all happens until you get off your knees.
I am Buddhist in my philosophy, atheist in my beliefs and humanist in my faith. None of which makes me a better or poorer person compared to anyone who walks this earth.
The paradox of religion, like politics, is the deep insecurity that lies behind the claims of superiority of one faction over the other. The reality is we are all ‘human’ and are drawn to use symbolism to describe what we do not or do not wish to understand.
This does not make symbolism ‘wrong’ it is just what ‘is’ for humans whether Hindhu, Sikh, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant … it is what people do with this symbolism and the ‘why’ that causes the schisms.
Just a wee reminder that these words were written by a fornicator, drunkard and atheist:
“Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a’ that,)
That Sense and Worth, o’er a’ the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an’ a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
That man to man, the world o’er,
Shall brithers be for a’ that.”
2012-03-31 14:59
Just a wee reminder that these words were written by a fornicator, drunkard and atheist:
“Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a’ that,)
That Sense and Worth, o’er a’ the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an’ a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
That man to man, the world o’er,
Shall brithers be for a’ that.”
I am not sure that Burns was an athiest, I think he may have been Christian…
2012-03-31 15:28
But he was a very prayerful fornicator, drunkard and Father to all of his children. And an inspiration to us all. Maybe some of our Labour Politicians should read, mark, learn and inwardly digest these words by Burns:
Then gently scan your brother man,
Still gentler sister woman;
Tho’ they may gang a kennin wrang,
To step aside is human:
One point must still be greatly dark,
The moving why they do it;
And just as lamely can ye mark
How far perhaps they rue it.
Who made the heart, ’tis He alone
Decidedly can try us:
He knows each chord, its various tone,
Each spring, its various bias:
Then at the balance let’s be mute,
We never can adjust it;
What’s done we partly may compute,
But know not what’s resisted.
2012-03-31 20:50
.
Just a wee reminder that these words were written by a fornicator, drunkard and atheist:
“Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a’ that,)
That Sense and Worth, o’er a’ the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an’ a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
That man to man, the world o’er,
Shall brithers be for a’ that.”
I am not sure that Burns was an athiest, I think he may have been Christian…
What happened to “Judge not” etc
2012-03-31 14:04
2012-03-31 15:58
I have to say that the O/T has been of great interest and conducted in an intelligent and polite manner which is more than can ever be said about the tribal politics practised by Labour.
In fact introducing Labour politics/crisis into the discussion does somewhat ruin the O/T.
2012-03-31 16:03
2012-03-31 16:12
Oh I wish it was that easy – A visit to Ibrox would demostrate that Indepedence(uni on)/ religion and football are all interwoven. Unless we resolve the issue of tolerance and respect we will never achieve the quality of nation we desire. An Independent country first I would agree but that is only the start of the journey.
Ibrox fans – don’t jump on me – I know that they are only one example.
2012-03-31 17:04
2012-03-31 20:55
Freedom1
Oh I wish it was that easy – A visit to Ibrox would demostrate that Indepedence(uni on)/ religion and football are all interwoven. Unless we resolve the issue of tolerance and respect we will never achieve the quality of nation we desire. An Independent country first I would agree but that is only the start of the journey.
Ibrox fans – don’t jump on me – I know that they are only one example.
You are 100% correct and your example clearly shows the difference in people and the reason for their mind set, it is our laws that keep us civil.
2012-03-31 16:24
It is clear in the O/T discussion on this thread that being Scots is a state of mind and not one of extreme religion, creed or colour as Westminster and others would wish to protray it. It may also explain why generations of Scots of Asian origin think of themselves as ‘Scots’ rather than ‘Scottish Asians’.
Jock Tamson’s bairns are alive, well and increasingly clear about the Scotland they wish for their descendents and it is far distant from the increasing ghettoisation of London, Birmingham and Manchester along religious and colour lines.
Ultimately the only way of achieving this Scots ideal of we are aa Jock Tamson’s bairns is gaining the very freedom you so desire as the core elements all inform each other.
2012-03-31 16:13
“No, Snecked, the most intolerant people you have met are small minded individuals, unprepared to think”
There we go again.
Somebody who assumes his “knowledge” is superior to that of all the hundreds and thousands of the world’s greatest intellects, very many of whom were staunchly religious.
Pray, tell me. How did the universe come about?
(Don’t tell me the “big bang”. We all know that. What actually “banged”? What caused “the big bang”. What preceded “the big bang”.It obviously wasn’t nothing)
Was it possibly ogd ,or dog or even “god”. You see many hundreds of thousands of intelligent thinkers have contemplated this question for years. And many came up with an understanding that the force of the universe is probably what our less well informed ancestors described as God. Infinity is beyond human understanding and God as well. And I am perfectly happy to allow people to formalise the great puzzle of the universe in a way that satisfies them.
This is not the forum for religious discussion and even less the forum for intemperate attacks of persons’ beliefs.
And don’t even start me on the absolutely magnificent charitable, medical, educational work done in the name of Christianity all over this world for hundreds of years.
2012-03-31 16:50
I was a long standing member of Rotary International, the world’s biggest non-religion charity running some of the world’s biggest health programs – since 1985 the organisation set out to remove polio from the world and have succeded to the point that there were fewer than 25 cases recorded in Africa last year and 12 in Asia. in doing so the membership has raised billions of dollars and the program has involved Rotarians being on the ground ensuring the delivery of vaccine to the children of the world. Name a world religion or none and there will be Rotarians who represent them. Rotary International is the only NGO recognised by the UN for its humanitarian works – Polio Plus, Shelterbox, Water Aid and many other programs – delivered without strings attached.
Whether you believe in God or not does not inform the person you are. You are the person you are because of what you choose to do or not to do.
2012-03-31 17:03
If your question is that there are things beyond my comprehension I fully agree. I can’t quite recall the quote (Carl Sagan I think)”The Universe is not only stranger than we think – it is stranger than we can think”
That is why many of us cannot accept that someone has been quietly slipped the secret.
If any one group is right then all the rest must be wrong?
I think our values are close as MJMM has described but I’m more towards the bhuddist / Star War’s Force end of the spectrum
2012-03-31 17:17
That is why many of us cannot accept that someone has been quietly slipped the secret.
You seem to accept that Carl Sagan has the secret, albeit it’s not very secret.
2012-03-31 17:24
Somebody who assumes his “knowledge” is superior to that of all the hundreds and thousands of the world’s greatest intellects, very many of whom were staunchly religious.
But the two don’t necessarily go hand in hand do they? There have been very many people of great intellect who were atheist, many had to hide this in the days when it meant at least social opprobrium and at worst a painful death. Similarly there are a lot of people of low intellect who are devoutly religious.
Quote:
Pray, tell me. How did the universe come about?
Absolutely no idea but, as a scientist, I am sure my colleagues who study physics will, some day, find out. However you are being very selective are you not? You are pointing at the limits of human knowledge and using that to support the assertion of supernatural forces. But these limits change all the time as we learn more and more.
For instance, 200 years ago you may have been asking where life on Earth and the human race came from. We didn’t know then as we don’t know about the beginnings of the universe now. Then along came a man of great intellect called Charles Erasmus Darwin (amongst others). Now we know that the Earth was not created in 7 days, that the life this planet supports took billions of years to evolve and that Homo sapiens sapiens is a part of that process. Nothing to do with two naked teenagers, a magic apple and a talking snake.
This is the difference between faith and reason.
Fr.Bell’s assertion that Quote:
faith should be the foundation and guiding principle for our political action.
worries me. I don’t want people whose thinking is guided by blind, unquestioning belief in a world view to make decisions for me, I want ethical people open to new ideas, with the ability to think critically as my politicians. What I do not want is people whose decisions will be clouded not only by what is written in an old book but more worryingly by the interpretation others, such as the Pope or an Imman or the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland put on the words written in their particular book.
2012-03-31 21:10
Quoting sneckedagain:
Somebody who assumes his “knowledge” is superior to that of all the hundreds and thousands of the world’s greatest intellects, very many of whom were staunchly religious.
But the two don’t necessarily go hand in hand do they? There have been very many people of great intellect who were atheist, many had to hide this in the days when it meant at least social opprobrium and at worst a painful death. Similarly there are a lot of people of low intellect who are devoutly religious.
Quote:Pray, tell me. How did the universe come about?
Absolutely no idea but, as a scientist, I am sure my colleagues who study physics will, some day, find out. However you are being very selective are you not? You are pointing at the limits of human knowledge and using that to support the assertion of supernatural forces. But these limits change all the time as we learn more and more.
For instance, 200 years ago you may have been asking where life on Earth and the human race came from. We didn’t know then as we don’t know about the beginnings of the universe now. Then along came a man of great intellect called Charles Erasmus Darwin (amongst others). Now we know that the Earth was not created in 7 days, that the life this planet supports took billions of years to evolve and that Homo sapiens sapiens is a part of that process. Nothing to do with two naked teenagers, a magic apple and a talking snake.
This is the difference between faith and reason.
Fr.Bell’s assertion that Quote:faith should be the foundation and guiding principle for our political action.
worries me. I don’t want people whose thinking is guided by blind, unquestioning belief in a world view to make decisions for me, I want ethical people open to new ideas, with the ability to think critically as my politicians. What I do not want is people whose decisions will be clouded not only by what is written in an old book but more worryingly by the interpretation others, such as the Pope or an Imman or the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland put on the words written in their particular book.
When John Smith (he of the Mormon faith), tried to justify have many wives, the judge told him , “you cam believe what you like, but you cannot do what you like. So it just one wiffie for jock.
2012-03-31 17:46
Remember, those gaps get smaller and smaller all the time. Now, I’m not claiming they’ll ever be reduced to nothing but claiming only God can fill those gaps is disingenuous to say the least.
2012-03-31 16:26
He was however a Christian of the best sort – questioning but hugely generous and non judgmental except of those who exploited others – and was no more of a fornicator than many others in the society of that day.
Hands up all the fornicators enjoying this blog.
Thought so.
That’ll about fill the SECC.
2012-03-31 17:24
I agree with you almost entirely so I’m at aloss with your comment. I’d respond in exactly the same way if some posters started abusing and insulting atheists.
I have no time for anybody who gratuitously attacks other peoples beliefs (unless they are dangerous or threatening) and I don’t think they should be allowed to disfigure this blog
2012-03-31 17:54
Really?
No matter how ridiculous those beliefs may be?
I understand that people have unsupported beliefs which are important to them but I see no reason why they should be allowed to present these as fact and not expect me to ask for evidence or to tell them that what they hold to be true was in fact cobbled together from previous belief systems around 180 AD and there is no contemporary record to corroborate what they say.
One of the many failings of Westminster is that religious people are given a position in the unelected house purely because they hold a religion. Even the US doesn’t do that. Religion and politics don’t seem to be a good mix.
2012-03-31 17:34
they will keep saying things but never
do! the labour party must not get the
concept of actions speak louder than
words!
2012-03-31 17:46
We are social animals. You can see similar cooperative behaviour in apes, monkeys, etc.
Religion, in my view, has hijacked this natural phenomenon. Are their any religions which advocate murder, adultery, theft, etc? No, because this would not resonate with our natural sense of right and wrong, which evolved over millennia.
2012-03-31 19:35
Inca’s / Egyptians and a few others religions did have ritual killing? They just classed humans to justfy it.
Their GOD’s demanded it – of course via the only human who could interpret their desires.
2012-03-31 17:47
Please don’t let this be the case in 21st century Scotland. SNP 1,2,3…then focus on Independence…then the divide and conquer camp don’t have a platform for their argument.
2012-03-31 17:57
2012-03-31 18:14
2012-03-31 18:03
Pretty much confirms what I think alot of us have been thinking, that the Tories really dont seem to be making much effort to save their precious union. Alot of the things they say and do it seems like they want to push us away faster.
Don’t think I follow their logic though about making their negotiating position stronger post indy.
2012-03-31 18:14
The game’s up and they know it. How did people think the Scotland bill was ‘tidied away’ so easily. Better make a pretence to support the union whilst in the background making sure the inevitable is as pain-free as possible. “Aye, we’ll keep selling you oil and power at a decent price etc. You’ll need to shift the WMDs quick though. What’s next on the agenda..ah yes, border security. So, moving on..”
Lots going on behind closed doors at the moment.
2012-03-31 18:06
2012-03-31 18:36
2012-03-31 18:45
Maybe their cosey wee relationship with the Tories will come to an abrupt halt pretty soon, further dividing the No Campaign.
It’s all good, as they say.
2012-03-31 19:28
2012-03-31 18:53
bbc.co.uk/…/…
I see Louperdowg linked to it over an hour ago
2012-03-31 18:54
I have always thought that Cameron, and by extension his inner circle, were smarter and more realistic than we give them credit for.
Because they are London-centric, committed to keeping power in London, they have limited room for manoeuvre in UK political terms.
It’s always been about preserving power in London, along with all the vested interests that go with it.
So they couldn’t be seen to be realists regarding Scotland and her future. That would be political suicide. The London bubble isn’t big enough for that sort of thing. But that doesn’t stop them from thinking about it and discussing it privately.
Cats out the bag now though!
2012-03-31 19:31
2012-03-31 19:21
“but I see no reason why they should be allowed to present these as fact”
Nor do I
But……
Who presented any beliefs as facts?
I am concerned with people being attacked on this fine organ which is designed to give us good political debate on the grounds that they profess to be Christian or whatever, which actually has nothing at all to do with the topic.
Wouldn’t it be lovely if Labour or the Tories got hold of some of the stuff posted here earlier and got it into the Sunday Post or the Sunday Mail
Can we get on with the politics?
2012-03-31 19:34
2012-03-31 20:52
Perhaps the cleric should not have started off the discussion. It was inevitable that it would create some fireworks.
Hmmmm, the Cleric is not ashamed of having started such an interesting discussion. In fact “the Cleric” has always seen that as part of the vocation.
With love and a wry smile from the Cleric.
x
2012-03-31 19:53
Yes we can – I for one never intented to question or challenge your personal faith.
2012-03-31 20:17
Who presented any beliefs as facts?
The atheists who reacted like a dog to a whistle to the presence of a priest expressing an opinion.
2012-03-31 20:34
He didn’t qualify it as reported in a book with doubtful provenance. It is as close to a historical report as if I were to say “Captain Picard said…” it’s just another fictional character.
Religious people seem to think that claiming they should be respected means that I’m not allowed to say,”No, it was all made up.” I reserve my right to say no, it’s nonsense, when they do that. I don’t start it, in the same way that I don’t tell people that cycling helmets are silly until they try to tell me off for not wearing one. In this case a Christian tried to drag his beliefs into this without qualifying them as nothing more than that.
2012-03-31 20:59
What if there is no God? – not a question to scare of a theologian.
I am more than happy to qualify belief, mine and others, and to do that quietly, without rancour and listen with a degree of humility to the answers because, I think that faith makes me more free to think beyond, the immediate, the seen and the measured. It encourages and exploration of hope, of looking for the numenous. It is not about hog-tying people with rules, it is about asking what if there could be more…?
2012-03-31 21:13
“numenous” I was unable to find a meaning for but the misspelling wiki suggested Numinous.
Hope does not require religion. I have some hope that someone else in Airdrie will start going places by bike. My current Facebook religion is listed as Maltodextrin who appears as a blue disgruntled man but, if I were to stray from the path of disgruntlement, it would not mean I had lost hope in the 10% of journeys on bike by 2010. It’s the government target after all.
2012-03-31 21:30
I am sorry that I mis-spelt numinous and thank you for correcting it.
What I am interested in are the nature and influence of guiding ideas, ethics and morals. I am not for silencing people or imposing the way I think or pray onto others. However, when a newly elected MP claims that God is on his side, I do feel legitimate in asking questions. It is the sharing of the gift of a good Scots Education, much in the same way that my hero Robert Burns would have done…
yours aye
Ro
2012-03-31 21:38
2012-03-31 23:10
There Is no historical record.
I understand that you have unsupported beliefs which are important to you but I see no reason why you should be allowed to present these as fact.
perseus.tufts.edu/…/…
2012-03-31 19:44
For that he got it in the neck.
Just as well he wasn’t a Moslem,eh?
As a matter of interest most churchgoers now are getting older -and they mostly vote.
2012-03-31 21:04
2012-03-31 21:22
Cruddas seems to be suggesting arguing for the union would put the party in a stronger negotiating position after the referendum.
He said: “We, as a party, have to be seen to be fighting to keep the Union together.
“Even if we don’t agree with it, because at the end of it all, if the Scots say we’re out of here and they want to go independent, we can turn around and say it’s not what we wanted, it’s not what we campaigned for, you can’t have this, you can’t have that, and you can get on with it.”
2012-03-31 21:11
telegraph.co.uk/…/…
“ Ed Staite, a public relations consultant, was filmed by undercover journalists from a Sunday newspaper posing as donors who wanted to influence George Osborne, the Chancellor.
He is reported to have told the potential donors claiming to be from a City fund that they could “communicate their priorities” if they help fund a “policy group”.
Mr Staite is also accused of saying the potential donors could try to use their influence to benefit their business strategy by pushing for the sale of the Royal Mail and other assets. “
It is starting to appear that the UK has the best Government that money can buy.
2012-03-31 21:49
Everyone has it in for ‘Gorgeous George’, but his views are still in the main Old Labour. And he stood against the Iraq war from the beginning. He made a gaffe in praising Saddam, and he has never lived this down. He was asked by a BBC reporter, ‘would you condone the killing of a British soldier by an Afghani?’ There are several answers that could have been given, but he evaded the question. The obvious answer would have been. ‘Get the troops out of Afghanistan and no-one will be killed.’ Or ‘Put the shoe on the other foot – if a Muslim army were here occupying our country killing our women and children, would it be right to kill any of them?’ I would have said it would be mandatory.
His stance on Iraq may have been some of the reason he won, but the main reason is his left-of-centre politics which appealed to the unemployed youth of Bradford.
I’m a bit worried about the assumption that Christians are all guided by the moral principles laid down by Christ in the expectation of an afterlife. I would admire a person more if he abided by these admirable tenets without expecting a reward in heaven for it.
I know, on independence that the SNP want to follow the Scandinavian model of social justice. I just hope Scotland does not go down the road of the fundamentalist Christian right in Denmark and Norway, which is now spreading across to Germany that wishes to purge Europe of Muslims (and by extension, ethnic minorities). I understand that this movement is being funded by fundamentalist US Christian organisattions. Is Christianity always a force for good? We don’t need any Andres Behrings in Scotland.
2012-03-31 23:32
I see no sign of this with the Scottish Government so they should not be associated, even loosely, with that sort of policy. They want to be all things to all men. I was going to make an exception in the case of the Unionists, but even they are being invited to join consenus politics, however, it does seem to be a problem for them.
I suggest that the majority of Scots would have a long way to back peddle to reach that state of mind.