This is the text of a speech I made on Friday evening in Aberdeen, addressing the question of the implications of Scottish independence for peace in Northern Ireland: Reconciliation and the Referendum A speech made at a Christians For Independence Public Meeting Jury’s Inn, Aberdeen 6th June 2014 by Bob Purdie The Moderator of the Church of Scotland has offered to hold a service of reconciliation after the referendum. Some people have assumed from this that the Kirk believes Scots are having a bitter dispute and not a civilised debate. Well, some people on our side have called the No side “quislings” and some of them have called us “Nazis”. But the Moderator’s critics miss the point, only one side is going to win, which means the other side must lose. The debate will intensify over the next three months and so could the emotional trauma for the losing side and the sense of triumph of the winners. So it might lead to bitterness and division. Decisions of this kind are part and parcel of politics and as Christians we can’t avoid them. We usually think of the Biblical account of the Judgement of Solomon as being about his ingenuity in identifying the rightful mother, but in fact there were three parts to it. He made a final decision about which woman would have the child. He made an ironic proposal to divide the child, showing that trying to satisfy everyone is not always just. And he made a preliminary judgement that only one woman could have a legitimate claim - one had to win and the other lose. In politics we often have to deal with such either/or situations and that’s what reconciliation is about. It is a necessary process to deal with the aftermath of disagreement and division in order to move on together in peace. In a recent pamphlet published by the Corrymeela Community, the Dutch Dominican theologian Andris Lascaris wrote about The Task of Healing in Europe. He considered the long history of religious conflict in Europe, not least in Northern Ireland, and he wrote, Reconciliation happens when a victim grants forgiveness and the perpetrator is in turn, willing to receive forgiveness. Both victim and perpetrator have to change and to enter new and just relationships. I can paraphrase his words to make them relevant to our situation. “Reconciliation in Scotland means that after the referendum both Yes and No will have to change and enter a new and just relationship.” I think that is what the Moderator has in mind as an outcome of the proposed service. As an Associate Member of both the Iona and Corrymeela Communities I was interested to read an exchange in the Iona magazine “Coracle” between members of the Harvey family, who all have Iona and Corrymeela links. Ruth Harvey and her two brothers, Kenny and Neil, supported Scottish independence, but her sister Susie Morrow in Belfast, along with Susie’s husband Duncan, expressed reservations. Duncan has been dubbed the “Anti-Bigotry Tsar” by our newspapers for his advisory work on sectarianism for the Scottish Government. Duncan and I are old friends and I was pleased to greet Susie, when I met her at Corrymeela last month, as “Tsarina”. I have a deep commitment to Northern Ireland so I have searched my conscience about the implications for that place of a successful “Yes” vote in Scotland. We here are often unaware of how important Scotland is in Northern Ireland. In fact we are guilty of the same kind insensitivity we complain of from English people who don’t know basic facts about Scotland. Many Scots complacently believe that the Good Friday Agreement has resolved the conflict, but Northern Ireland is probably more bitterly polarised today than at any time since the Hunger Strikes. And it is now divided not just between Catholics and Protestants, there has been an upsurge in racist incidents. Anna Lo, the ethnic Chinese Alliance Party Member of the Assembly has said she may have to quit politics because of the harassment she has suffered, she may even have to leave Northern Ireland altogether. So I have to ask myself, and I have to answer Duncan and Susie, could Scottish independence destabilise the fragile peace in Northern Ireland? Susie writes: Whichever side “wins”, my anxiety is that a nationalist/unionist debate might become the dominant one in Scottish politics. Although its origins and axes would be different to those in Northern Ireland, it could similarly lead to significant disengagement in and disillusionment with politics, and to dangerous “us and them” divisions. She suggests that this could “push issues of social justice right of the map” and urges “grace in victory and grace in defeat”. I think her concerns are legitimate and also I agree with Duncan, “Not only is the constitution at stake, but our souls are too.” And I agree when he says: If independence is a way to build more humanity, to create better relationships, to contribute to a world based on interdependence stewardship and mutual service, then who can stand in its way? If it makes us more distant, more suspicious and more chauvinistic, we must be on our guard. Exactly the same is true of the Union. They express concern for Scotland, but behind that is their knowledge that polarised bitterness over here will not help reconciliation in Northern Ireland. So I want to explain to my Corrymeela friends why I think a victory for “Yes” will be good for peace in Northern Ireland. I do not claim that a defeat for independence would have the opposite effect, simply that the process of achieving and consolidating an independent Scotland is more likely to result in positive change in Northern Ireland as well. But let me reassure them, whoever wins the referendum Yes and No will then dissolve into a host of contending schools of thought, bidding for support for their vision of a future Scotland. Too much creative energy has been generated for us to freeze into two mutually exclusive camps. I am proud of the Yes campaign’s generosity of spirit. It has been pluralist from the start, it is been based on local initiatives and spontaneous groups which represent different sectors of Scottish life, such as women, academics, pensioners, young people, business people and trade unionists. In discussions between the Yes and No sides, as happened in my home town of Kirkcaldy two weeks ago, the focus has been on the issues, and these have been rigorously, but courteously, argued. Large audiences of ordinary Scots ask probing questions and only one or two hot heads go beyond the bounds of polite debate. In our local Kirkcaldy Yes group SNP members campaign alongside Socialists, Greens, Labour for Independence and many people with no other political affiliation. That is typical of Yes groups all over Scotland and the movement spans ethnic and religious distinctions. At the Kirkcaldy debate both of the Yes speakers were Muslims. Tolerance of differences is built into the Yes campaign and that will not disappear on 19th September. After a successful Yes vote Scottish politics will change fundamentally. Yes and No will have to come together to negotiate Scotland’s future and the Scottish government has stated that these negotiations will be conducted on a cross party basis. The SNP will not have a monopoly in shaping the outcome and I expect that a few of the compromises that emerge will not be welcomed by some SNP members. No single party or group is gong to dominate in an independent Scotland. What will that mean for Northern Ireland? To Republicans we will have said, “your claim that political violence was necessary has been disproved. We have achieved fundamental constitutional change peacefully and democratically”. To traditional nationalists we will have shown that any future coming together of both parts of the island will involve detailed, patient, practical negotiations, not a simple transfer of sovereignty from London to Dublin, which has been the usual anti-partitionist view. To Unionists we will have shown that there is no longer a place in the politics of these islands for the violent coercion they have always feared. To Loyalists we will show that allegiance to a British identity and to the symbols of crown and flag can be accepted in an independent Scotland. We are not disputing identity, we are improving how we are governed. The United Kingdom has divided allegiances in Northern Ireland since 1922, with Scottish independence it will have changed fundamentally so they will have to consider what that means for them and go through a process of radical rethinking. We will have helped them by showing an example of deeply rooted, democratic, discussion and change which involves ordinary people, not just the political elite. That is exactly the kind of process that is going to be needed if Northern Ireland is ever going to achieve the secure peace for which I fervently pray.
Posted on: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 13:26:44 +0000