Possibly the inspiration comes from ‘a woman’s right to choose’.
The Abortion Act 1967 was passed with assurances that ‘social’ abortion would not occur. More than 50 years later few people recall this and the debate is now about ‘a woman’s right to choose’. It has been a slippery slope.
The shifting debate
It is a feature of modern debate, moving from moral relativism to the shifting goalposts of secular relativism, that morality and ‘rights’ are determined by the current flavour of the month, known as political correctness, manifested now in gender confusion, described in slippery terms as gender fluidity and promoted by the SNP Government in primary and secondary schools in Scotland.
It is difficult to hit a moving target and this ‘catch me if you can’ form of government has the appearance of being effective but the time comes when the music stops and people on a slippery surface often fall over. This is one aspect in the popular Brexit revolt against the powergrab and attempted landgrab of Northern Ireland and Scotland by European Union institutions.
In similar vein, the Scottish Executive re-invented itself unilaterally as the Scottish Government. Since then, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in particular speaks and behaves as if the Scottish Government is an independent administration, as though the Scottish tail can, should and has a right to wag the UK dog.
No opposition in Scotland
Sturgeon gets away with this because of ineffective opposition. Where is the effective opposition in the Scottish Parliament? Is any opposition MSP a household-name in Scotland? None that I know of. In spite of the platform they have, there is none able to articulate an alternative vision for Scotland.
Sturgeon speaks of the UK being a voluntary union of nations. True, but who in Scotland will take on the debate? Who will point out that she also speaks of a spurious equality – based upon the modern slippery definition of equality?
Why does it take political journalism to call out the First Minister? What quality of MSPs does the Scottish Parliament have?
Why will it take English MPs or at least MPs in the House of Commons to win the Scottish Unionist debate? Beginning with ex-Prime Minister’s Theresa May’s speech in the House of Commons today, there is much to be done in this debate. Only the Scottish Christian Party has drawn attention to 1. the lack of a Scottish Vision in the SNP, which also applies to the other political parties in Scotland so that SNP supporters are beguiled into thinking only the SNP cares for Scotland, 2. how to explain the difference between UK separation from the EU and the SNP separation from the UK, in a context of the EU’s attempted landgrab of Scotland and Northern Ireland. So far the debate has been economic and historical – the length of ‘the most successful union in modern times’, the ties of family, history and shared endeavours – with occasional references to the need for constititutional reform. The Scottish Christian Party has addressed each of these issues but the mainstream media are uninterested. So where are the opposition MSPs who are up to the task?
This is why we need a Christian Voice in the Scottish Parliament.
19 Dec 2019: SNP’s Ian Blackford confirms the boundary extension and the landgrab of the EU’s reach through sympathetic political parties and parliamentarians in Scotland. This extends to those in Northern Ireland and Wales bent upon breaking up the United Kingdom using the independence mantra. Borders are of the essence of the debate, as the Northern Ireland backstop demonstrated in the Brexit debate, and these borders are under threat. This is what warfare was about in the past, and it continues in the present by other means. Blackford quoted Charles Stewart Parnell’s theory of unlimited boundary extension, and Parnell’s misuse, contradiction and ignorance of the Bible’s teaching. Blackford and his cheering supporters were unable to see the nonsense and dangerous doctrine contained in the quotation – but, after all, they are nationalists.