        Phone: 0131 558 8137 |
|
Long holidays, lavish allowances, and expensive medals - that's the story of the Scottish Parliament so far, isn't it? When Sir David Steel was asked by the Kirk's Committee on Church & Nation to reflect on "who speaks for Scotland", he caught the headlines by attacking the sloppy journalism that has rubbished the new Parliament without bothering with the facts. He called on us to "cherish" our new democracy through its birth-pangs. Is that a role for the churches? If we "baptised" the new Parliament at its kirking (maybe even acted as its godparents), do we have a responsibility to stick by it? "Critical solidarity" has been a key term of the churches' engagement world-wide and it has been expressed by many local congregations in making contact with their MSPs on the basis of a shared commitment to the well-being of their communities. Getting the right balance between "critical" and "solidarity" may be the tricky bit. Theologically, we shouldn't be surprised to see bits of the old sinful self emerge amid the new politics - it is our theological realism about people and power that has made us advocates of an open and participative Parliament. This briefing looks at some of the early developments in light of what the Scottish churches have said along these lines, and is intended to stimulate debate as well as asking where we should be applying pressure. New Politics? The clearest sign of a new politics is that we have a coalition government, the almost inevitable result of the PR voting system. The Partnership Agreement, hammered out under pressure in several days' negotiation over bad coffee and Highland Spring water (at one point, it is said, the Lib Dems grew tired of new Labour food - quiche and canap's - and went off for fish and chips!), has become the key political document defining executive policy. A "behind closed doors" deal supplanting the manifestos we voted on, or an honest attempt to form an administration which reflects how a majority of the electorate voted? The new politics of working together creatively or a device to get back to the politics of "us" and "them"? The answers will emerge as the strains - not just over tuition fees - are felt. Many of the Partnership Agreement proposals have now been translated into "Making It Work Together: A Programme for Government" - which is presented as an exercise in accountability by the Executive, a basis for assessing their performance along with several "Action Plans" on specific topics. Others have seen it simply as an attempt at better presentation of policy, perceived as an initial weakness of the Executive. If labels matter, it's a bit worrying to see the SNP referred to as the "official opposition". That may be media shorthand but carefully crafted consensual debating chambers won't count for much if one "side" feels obliged to shout black when the others say white. Which is not to say (as the media imply) that consensus politics is about political politeness or failing to argue the case for what you believe is right.
|
Home Page | Briefings | FAQs
Staff | Links Page | Reflection Page | Update Page