The 11th Commandment

Recently, the Church of England opposed a movement to allow women to become bishops within their religious community. With the failure to accept this modern move, the church only makes itself even more seemingly outdated and outmoded precursor to 21^st century living.

The proposal, rejected on the 20^th November, refused the ordination of women bishops largely on the grounds of tradition. However, in an era where tradition is often disregarded for the latest in innovation, and equality is always at the forefront of Western democracy, this argument does not appeal to the public en masse.

Perhaps you might cry that this in itself is blasphemy and indicative of how far Western civilization has moved away from religious doctrine.

Yet, religion is, by its definition, a system of personal beliefs (“The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God”). If we are to galvanise a generation to return to God, then we need build out from the belief that God is all understanding, all knowing and all forgiving.

Surely, this God in all his wisdom would not allow for women bishops if he thought it sacrilege. You may deem that statement something akin to a religious nut. But the inverse argument is being upheld in practice. God has not given a sign, so let’s not move forward.

A Christ-like prophet today would surely amend a great many of the practical sides of the Christian doctrine. The fundamentals would of course be the same: but, restrictive and outdated views, informed by gender, orientation, race and other discriminatory factors would be all but removed.

The ‘example’ of Christ who had 12 male disciples is often used as a staunch argument for preventing women entering these positions in the church. However, Jesus, an outsider in the message he preached, needed male figures to continue to carry his message if it were to last and survive. Women of the 1^st century, through to women of the 20^th century, hardly held social influence at large. Women weren’t sidelined, just fulfilled roles that social positioning would allow them.

Now, social equality means that stigmas attached to the fairer sex are not at all restrictive. Why would religion keep up this pretence.

More, can someone please explain this decision with any rationale when a Queen can be supreme dictator (or whatever the official term actually is) of the Church of England, and well, the same one has been for the past 60 years. There is no logic. At all.

Besides, if we’re all wrong about this equality for all (which from just about every teaching ever, I’d say we’re not), our all merciful God will forgive us, because the omnipresent being will comprehend that we did it with the best of intentions.

All that has been achieved is a further zone of religious exclusion. And if anything, surely that is the larger of these two sins by any measurement.

Flower of Scotland

1916: In the middle of World War One, Ireland stages a bid for independence in Dublin, threatening the British chances of success at a crucial moment in the war effort.

2012: In the middle of the worst recession since the Wall Street Crash, Scotland stages a democratic bid for independence “in Edinburgh, in London, or anywhere the Prime Minister pleases”, with many deeming the act detrimental to British growth at a crucial moment of European downgrading.

Certainly, the debate waging around the possibility of independence versus unity has seen battle lines drawn, but these may be premature concerns.

Previous breakups of the United Kingdom in Ireland provide a primary cause for concern. However, the eventual independence granted to Ireland was more an appeasement following a costly war, with transition handled distastefully by both parties. Looking back over the course and administration of the change of power, there are easily identifiable mistakes that could (and should) be avoided in the case of Scottish independence.

Continued violence and hostility is the true legacy of Irish independence and that was a threat suffered particularly till the turn of the century, but a decade ago. Scottish independence, on the other hand, would be entered into through democratic debate rather than the forceful mode of conduct that kickstarted and marked the Irish movement. England, not as prominent on a world scene, would be more amenable to these discussions than its own rash nature almost 100 years ago, when maintaining status was a priority.

Besides, a peaceful resolution would be encouraged while resources are stretched so thin across the United Kingdom due to cuts.

However, Scotland would surely earn the lion’s share of these resources from a split. Economically vibrant at the moment, Scotland has, as expected, the second largest GVA per capita in the United Kingdom, after England. Yet, many do not appreciate, or are completely unaware of, the fact that revenue from the North Sea oil rigs are not included in these figures, as the profit is currently ‘distributed’ around the UK instantly. With independence, 91% of the oil area lies within the Scottish borders. The sudden wealth that would be available to the northern territory as a whole would transform many areas of public spending and investment: leaving Scotland with little deficit.

In fact, it is already recognised that Scotland is the largest producer of petroleum within the EU, and that there is potential for other offshore oil-sites.

Additionally, Scotland is the central zeitgeist for whiskey lovers worldwide. Exports in specialisms such as whiskey, shortbreads, fudges and fishing produce earn the Scottish country a reputation for delicacies renowned the world over. Add the prominence in manufacturing and construction (Glasgow for example houses the largest shipping construction area within the UK), and one can see the advantages to a booming Scottish economy.

Already a relatively rich nation, the boost proffered from continued exports would ensure gained capital and circulation of the pound. In 2007 alone, Scotland’s top 10 export destinations alone earned the country in excess of £18,825 million. Imagine the growth in this figure with Scottish independence, backed peacefully by England.

In turn, this could help Scotland to tackle its slums and poverty problems. Despite the economic benefits of the oil, there is still marked difference between lifestyles of many Scots and their counterparts south of the border. An average male in Glasgow for example only has a life expectancy of 69. Scottish public services see themselves as inhabiting a different social area than England and Wales, with different key issues of poverty, drugs, and unemployment to tackle.

However, even with the separation, use of the GBP will insure continued intrinsic links with the remaining UK factions. Extra trade on the pound from Scotland will ensure continued circulation that benefits England and Wales itself in the long run.

A poll by YouGov last May showed marginal support for the move, but an overwhelming rejection from Scotland itself.

Perhaps the break-away of Scotland would also encourage a deeper look at the British image: a modern twenty-first century conglomerate of cultures hinged on London. The investment seen across Scotland should be mimicked across larger areas of the UK. HS2 makes some steps in that direction, but relatively few and relatively slowly. England is not capitalising upon its current market opportunities. Expanse of infrastructure would allow greater migration of peoples across the country for jobs. Focussing our main sources of income on development would allow a certain independence in a time of Eurozone uncertainty, creating a more stable market area.  A galvanised population to the North could teach English people a thing or two about national pride for sure.

Scuppering Salmond’s hopes for Scotland however are the Welsh and Irish members of Parliament, claiming that Scottish dominion in its own right would leave the two areas outvoiced within Westminster.

Nonetheless, considering moves towards Welsh parliaments, it would appear rather foolhardy to prevent progress for the sake of tradition. Not only does the move allow England a greater democratic voice, but it is not in the apocalyptic fashion that the Welsh and Irish describe: rather radicalisation on both sides of the border due to the split would see new ideas emerge as to how the country should be run and here lies the prospect of wide social and cultural change (the thing the Welsh and Irish appear to advocate amidst a Tory government).

With no date currently set for the vote (despite furious debate over timing this past week), we shall have to watch the development and resolution of lingering issues, such as currency, military, and Nuclear warheads over the coming months.

Shaking of the shackles of union is never an easy transition, but for the cultural, economic and social benefits that Scotland could wager, perhaps the UK should be more amenable to the shouts of “FREEDOM”.

12 Unresolved Questions of Scottish Independence. 

To Punish or Not to Punish.

Certain incredulity is surely abound amongst the British population tonight as MPs argue back and forth over the level of punishment suitable for the rioters that ruled several important cities across the country last week.

Coming to terms with the extent of last week’s devastating loots, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, last week publically pledged that all those found to have been involved in the illicit actions would be met with the full force of the law: a sentiment that was supported by the vast majority of the nation. Mr Cameron added “If these people are old enough to commit the crime, they are old enough to face the punishment.”

However, as it emerged that some of the participants were as young as eight years old, there begs the question of the age of criminal responsibility. Moreover, this issue is one clearly within the public spotlight and mind frame. Unlike the daily sessions in court, specific interest has caused a commotion and tense atmosphere under which jurors are expected to pass harsher sentences than normal.

Of course, these are no normal conditions. Law should be considered as a measurable tool for each individual and not haphazardly applied in blanket fashion across all those who are not law abiding citizens.

Yet it is somewhat disparaging and deeply concerning when people are faced with this comparison: 18 year old, David Atto, pleaded guilty to the theft of two Burberry T-shirts. With no previous convictions against his name and an honest plea, he was sentenced to a day in custody. Meanwhile, Nicolas Robinson, 23, of Borough, south-east London, was jailed for six months for burglary. Of course, whilst the nature of the offense is similar to that above, Robinson took a £3.50 bottle of water from a Lidl Supermarket. The difference is astounding to say the least.

Some judges cite the difference of the level of crime as meriting the change in sentence strength. The natural response is an onslaught of appeals to what many feel constitute a miscarriage of justice. 

However, if the perpetrators were so moved to action in a frenzy trusting that they would only receive trivial punishment, then the system need not cave on the level of severity introduced thus far.

Now that more than 1,000 people have been sentenced in association with the disturbances, the murmurs of discontent on both sides are spreading. As changeable and extreme as the punishments first appear, ex-Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell has urged MPs not to pass comment. Any attempt by MPs to influence judges' decisions was "not consistent with the rule of law", he told the BBC. In a radio interview, he elaborated by explaining, “What I don't think is right is that politicians should have a league table in which they approve of some sentences and disapprove of others. It's none of our business.”

Unprecedented opinions however are sure to spill over and whilst Sir Campbell’s comments make sense so as not undermine any law system, these, the most powerful men and women in the country, are looked toward first and foremost from a populous so dumbfounded.

Technological twists only further tangle the trials and thought on relevant sentence. With many now being brought to court for Facebook and Twitter comments as inciting violence, there is a difficulty with how to justify any extended action if the person was not directly involved or foolishly made a passing jibe. In almost a sci-fi fashion, we could be advocating courts to follow through on pre-crime solutions. 

Level of justice and level of crime. Scales that constantly need be measured to ensure a smoothly running country have here seemed to see-saw back and forth. But as a public we must remember, we are no more qualified to say what is suitable punishment than the MPs. Politicians make law; police and courts enforce and implement law.