Category: Solas in the Media

Our society needs to come to grips with and understand the love of God | The Scotsman

|  By David Robertson  |

The Prime Minister was mocked for saying that ‘Brexit means Brexit’. Such truisms are surely too simplistic for the sophisticated British electorate? The First Minister announced at the Glasgow Pride event at the weekend, “Love is Love” – and was applauded. But what does that mean? Just as ‘Brexit means Brexit’ sounds good to those who think Brexit is a good idea and think they know what it means, so ‘Love is Love’ sounds good to those who think they know what it means. But what does it mean? What is love? Is love more than a feeling? More than a second-hand emotion? And what does love have to do with government policy?

For those who are naturalistic materialistic atheists or agnostics, there is a real problem. If everything is reduced to the chemical, the physical and the biological then love is, like humanity, just a collection of chemicals. As the late great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell declared, “we are a blob of carbon floating from one meaningless existence to another”. ‘Love’ therefore is simply a chemical reaction, something which makes the ‘Love is Love’ truism meaningless in almost every sense, but especially in determining government policy. After all why should one chemical reaction be considered more significant than another? Hate after all is hate – and it too is a chemical reaction. But hate is bad. Agreed? But how do we know that? In a materialistic world there is ultimately no good and bad, just social constructs and evolved language. Who is to say that just as we are told we can change the social construct of gender, that we cannot change the even more malleable construct of language? Maybe Orwell was right in his dystopian vision of 1984 – how long before we have crowds shouting ‘hate is love and love is hate’?

There is another even more obvious problem with saying that love is love in a Godless world. What if someone’s chemical reaction is to marry ten people? Or to marry their sister? Or they have a chemical reaction that attracts them towards children? No one doubts that these things exist but does that mean that because ‘love is love’; polygamy, incest and paedophilia should be government policy? Of course not. Before going any further it needs to be stressed (because there are those who think this and there are those who thinks it is being implied) that I am not equating homosexuality with these at all. I am trying to deal with the logical basis (if one is allowed to think logically in today’s emotive political culture) that the First Minister set our for her ‘consultation’ (which is of course nothing of the sort, as the result is already pre-determined) announced at the weekend in which people will be able to self-declare themselves to be whatever gender they want – without any need for medical or psychological evidence. ‘Love is Love’ is a nice soundbite to be applauded by an unthinking crowd, but it is not a reason for government policy – especially because it is so vacuous.

But is love irrelevant? No – we need to define what it is. Perhaps the Darwinian understanding of humanity can help here? Love is more beneficial to humanity than hate because we have learned that reciprocal altruism benefits the species as a whole- whereas hate destroys it. It’s a good argument. But is the ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ argument enough? Is that a sufficient basis for government policy? It’s certainly an improvement on love is love, but it still remains hopelessly inadequate. There may be times when hate actually benefits a particular group and society – would that make it right? And there surely is a time when even reciprocal altruism is not enough. What about that most absurd and evil of Christian doctrines, as Christopher Hitchens declared, ‘love your enemies’?

Because for the Christian there is a different and more concrete version of love. The Apostle Paul teaches about it in 1 Corinthians 13, the Lord Jesus exemplifies and practices it – and the Apostle John sum it up neatly in his first letter.

  This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.” 1 John 3:16 (NIV). “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 

1 John 4:10-11 (NIV)

These are profound and deep words that require a lot of thought, meditation and practical working out. But they are real and concrete. What if they are true? They provide substance and meaning to ‘Love is Love’ by telling us and showing us that ‘God is Love’. That does not mean that anything we feel is love can then be considered to be God. It does however give us an objective and real standard outwith ourselves, by which we can judge and be judged. It is the most radical and revolutionary teaching of Jesus Christ, which once turned the world upside down and can do so again. Perhaps our society really needs to come to grips with and understand the love of God in Christ – so that love ceases to be a second-hand emotion and instead becomes the dynamic of us all?


Gordon Wilson

On behalf of the Board of Trustees:

It is with sadness and respect that everyone here at Solas CPC remembers Gordon Wilson, who passed away yesterday in Dundee.  Gordon was the co-founder of Solas and served as the first Chairman of the Board of Trustees. The organisation owes a great deal to his initial impetus and his drive.

He once told me about the combination of circumstances which brought him and his wife Edith to St Peter’s Free Church in Dundee, where he came to feel that David Robertson’s gifts as an evangelist were not being developed effectively enough. He believed that after years of church decline it was time for a Christian counter-attack. This was the genesis of Solas, which he described, saying “I managed the business side, including the eventual incorporation and strategy (and money where I had the legendary reputation of being able to say ‘No’ to spending!). Everything else was dealt with by David, and in its early form it was a platform for his evangelism. The longer term aim was to provide training and education for Church-based Christians to give them confidence to project the faith to the wider public.”

Since Gordon retired as chairman in 2013, he has maintained his interest as the work of Solas has grown and developed. As a movement we give thanks to God for his vision and we rejoice in the great hope of the gospel which Gordon longed to see spread far and wide.

D. J. Randall, Chairman


On behalf of St Peter’s Free Church:

The congregation of St Peter’s have been deeply saddened to hear of the death of one of our members, Gordon Wilson, the former MP and leader of the SNP. Gordon was also the founder together with myself of the Solas – Centre for Public Christianity. He and Edith have been a lively and lovely part of our fellowship for the past few years and we will miss them enormously. Humble, generous and servant-hearted, they have been a consistent encouragement to us. At a personal level I will miss his humour, wisdom and insight, not only into political affairs but also other aspects of humanity. He was kind, gracious, loyal and intelligent. I regard him as a significant mentor, influence and friend. Before he died he told me that he had no fear because he knew where he was going, only sorrow for the family that he would leave behind. We share with Edith and the family in that sorrow and pray that they would know the comfort of the Comforter. We give thanks for Gordon and his life and witness. Scotland will be a poorer place without him.

D. A. Robertson, Minister

Why the BBC should not broadcast Muslim prayer

David Robertson explains why he believes the BBC should resist pressure to increase their coverage of other religions such as Islam

The BBC are suggesting that they’re going to increase their coverage of other religions, after complaints that it was too Christian.

The aim is to have more coverage of Islam, Hinduism and other faiths. Aaquil Ahmed, the former head of religion and ethics at the BBC told a parliamentary committee: “Christianity remains the cornerstone of our output and there are more hours dedicated to it than there are to other faiths”.

Within the parameters of modern British liberalism this seems so obvious. It has been suggested that the BBC could for example televise Friday prayers from a mosque – thus we would end up with the situation where the BBC would be broadcasting the Islamic call to prayer. What’s wrong with that idea? Who could object to the idea that there should be equal and proportionate treatment of all religions on the BBC?  Me. And many others. Not because we hate Muslims. We don’t. We love Muslims, welcome them to this country and because we love them so much we want to introduce Jesus to them. We are not white British supremacists who think that only ‘British’ values are worthy of broadcasting.

Nor do we think Islam should be banned and freedom of religion should not apply to Islam. In fact precisely the opposite. It is because we want to preserve freedom of religion that we want to retain Britain’s Christian tradition.

The statement that there are more hours dedicated to Christianity than any other faith is true – but it should be true! There are 3 million Muslims in the UK – around 4.5% of the population. This is projected to rise to around 11% by 2030. However the number of Christians is at 64% although projected to decline to 45%. The other faiths are much smaller. Therefore it is only logical that Christianity remains the predominant faith.

The BBC is obliged by its charter to produce 110 hours of religious broadcasting each year. That is around two per week. If we were to divide this proportionately Islam would receive around 10 hours per year – that’s around 12 minutes per week.

Britain is a Christian country

But there is an even more important objection. The BBC is the British state broadcaster. It is funded by the British state. And Britain is a Christian country. Our constitution is Christian. Our history is Christian. Our legal, education, health and welfare systems are based on Christian principles. The BBC itself was founded on Christian principles – its motto comes from the biblical books of Hosea, Isaiah and Philippians.

Above broadcasting house there is this motto:

“This Temple of the Arts and Muses is dedicated to Almighty God by the first Governors of Broadcasting House in the year 1931, Sir John Reith being Director-General. It is their prayer that good seed sown may bring forth a good harvest, that all things hostile to peace or purity may be banished from this house, and that the people, inclining their ear to whatsoever things are beautiful and honest and of good report, may tread the path of wisdom and uprightness.”

It is because we want to preserve freedom of religion that we want to retain Britain’s Christian tradition.

Now of course things change. And my friends in the various secular societies will be having heart attacks even reading this. They argue we are no longer a Christian country. We are a secular society.  And therefore we are religiously neutral and if there is religious broadcasting at all it should be historical, educational and critical but certainly not religious worship/propaganda and indoctrination.

The trouble is that secularism in that sense is not neutral. The BBC has unquestionably become secular but no-one would seriously argue that it is neutral about moral issues. In fact it is one of the prime promoters of the secularist values of the liberal elites that many in the US, Europe and the UK are now turning against.

I was once asked to give a thought for the day on BBC Radio Scotland and was told that I could not mention the phrase ‘Britain’s Christian values’ because it would be offensive to some. As a result I was banned from speaking! This fascinating article has some insights into how the BBC really treats Christians.


Another objection I have is that there will be unfair treatment. While Christianity continues to be regularly mocked, debunked and critically analysed on the BBC, it is highly unlikely that this would ever happen to Islam on the BBC. Why? Because, apart from the threat of physical violence if Mohammed is blasphemed, and the political and economic repercussions from rich Islamic states, the BBC tends to regard Islam as a race and therefore sees any criticism of Islam as being Islamaphobic and racist. It has no such problem with Christaphobia.

Perhaps we should have more Islam on the BBC? But only if it is subjected to the same critical scrutiny that is given to Christianity and if the de facto ban on those Christians who actually believe the Bible is lifted! I guess that is my major concern.

My fear as well is that we just end up with liberal propaganda, using religion as the excuse. And so for example we are informed that it would be good to have a programme about how many Jews were saved by Muslims during the Holocaust. Indeed it would. But that should not be at the expense of pointing out how much the Nazis were supported and inspired by many Muslim leaders. Or that the annihilation of Israel is still a cardinal belief for many Muslims. Even to mention such would be considered a hate crime.

The BBC are going to end up creating this make-believe world of religions, where their philosophy that all are essentially the same and all lead to one world peace/religion etc is the only philosophy allowed.

Free to worship

My concern is not with Islamic prayers being shown on TV. My concern is that, in pursuit of its liberal amorphous view of religion and using it to promote liberal secular values, the BBC will neuter any effective portrayal of biblical Christianity and end up promoting a religion that will undermine the traditional Christian ethos of this country. If you are an atheistic secularist and wonder why that matters – just answer this question: How many countries where Islam is the predominant system, allow freedom of religion, freedom to change one’s religion and freedom to be an atheist?

In pursuit of its liberal amorphous view of religion, the BBC will neuter any effective portrayal of biblical Christianity

In the Christian UK, people are free to worship, believe and not believe as they wish. In a post-Christian UK those rights will not necessarily be guaranteed. There is a danger that because the liberal secularist elites don’t understand the fundamental differences between religions, and like to think that everyone thinks like them, they will allow the BBC to be used as a Trojan horse, to promote a religion which goes against the very values they espouse.

Of course the liberals think they can control things and create a more Western, secular version of Islam. I suspect they will be as successful in that as they have been in seeking to bring democracy to the Middle East through war! But by the time they realise they have failed it will be too late.

Muslims should be free to broadcast and air their call to prayer on private and independent TV stations. But the BBC, as the state broadcaster of a Christian nation, should not be promoting, at tax payers expense, a religion which will fundamentally undermine the basic Christian values of our nation.

PRESS RELEASE: New Director for the Solas Centre for Public Christianity – Dr. Andy Bannister

Dr. Andy Bannister, former Canadian Director of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) , has become the new full-time Director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity from 1st September 2016. Building on the work of David Robertson whom he succeeds in this role, Andy will lead the Solas team in their drive to carry the Christian message into the public square and to train and equip churches across Scotland and further afield to articulate the relevance of faith in Jesus Christ.

Andy and his family are moving to Scotland from Toronto where he has headed the revitalisation of RZIM Canada, an organisation dedicated to engaging sceptics, doubters and seekers with the Christian message, as well as equipping Christians to articulate what they believe with clarity, conviction and compassion. Andy will continue to serve RZIM as an adjunct speaker. Before Canada, Andy was based near Oxford and has a background in philosophy and theology—including a PhD in Islamic Studies from Brunel University.

An experienced speaker, writer and teacher, Andy has spoken widely—including at universities across Canada, America and Europe, as well as in business and parliamentary settings, in churches and on TV and radio. He has also been involved in numerous interfaith dialogue events, especially with the Muslim community, including a recent dialogue at Canada’s second largest mosque in Toronto. Andy enjoys addressing audiences both of Christians and those of all faiths and none on issues relating to faith, culture, politics and society.

Andy is the author of two books: “An Oral-Formulaic Study of the Qur’an” [], a ground-breaking study that applies computerised analysis to the Arabic text of the Qur’an to demonstrate how it was first composed; and “The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist (or: The Terrible Consequences of Bad Arguments)” [], a fast-paced mix of comedy and theology that untangles some of arguments advanced by popular media atheists like Richard Dawkins. Andy also wrote and presented the documentary series Burning Questions for Canadian television.

Solas was founded in 2010 by David Robertson, who will remain very much involved with the organisation. David writes: “I am delighted to be handing over the leadership of Solas to Andy Bannister and to continue my own work as Associate Director. This is a major and exciting development and something for which I have been praying for a long time.” David Randall, chairman of the Solas Board, also welcomes the appointment and believes that Andy’s gifts and energy will strengthen the mission of Solas to communicate the gospel in today’s public square.

Andy has long had a love affair with Scotland, being an avid mountain climber, hiker, and landscape photographer. He and his family are thrilled to be moving from Canada to Scotland and looking forward to engaging in conversations about faith in the public square, serving the Scottish churches and Christianity community, and helping equip Christians to speak persuasively and confidently about Jesus Christ to their friends, neighbours and colleagues.

For more information about Solas, Andy Bannister, or David Robertson, please contact:

Solas Centre for Public Christianity
Swan House, 2 Explorer Road, Technology Park, Dundee, DD2 1DX
Or call 01382 525 021 or visit


Naming and Shaming – the Named Person Debacle

Published in Christian Today   29th July 2016

In an astonishing and unusual decision the UK Supreme Court has struck down a Scottish government law, the Named Person Act, by a majority of five to zero. There are many aspects to this case but because it was brought by, among others, Christian charities, it is important for us to realise and understand what is going on here.

CARE and the Christian Institute have portrayed this as a victory for them against the Named Person scheme. Dr Gordon MacDonald of CARE stated:

“This is a stunning victory for parents and families across Scotland. We are delighted judges at the UK’s highest court have backed our case.”

But the Scottish government had a different point of view. The minister responsible, John Swinney posted:

“I welcome the publication of today’s judgment and the fact that the attempt to scrap the named person service has failed.”

So what is going on?

The Named Person Scheme came about because of perceived weaknesses in child protection provision in Scotland. There was a particular concern for joined up thinking and co-operation between different agencies involved with child welfare. The SNP has a scheme entitled “Getting it Right for Every Child” of which the Named Person legislation is a key part.

The idea is that each child in Scotland from the womb (an interesting development in itself) to aged 18 will have a state appointed Named Person, who will be a point of contact for parents, welfare services, the NHS, education etc. The aim is to improve access to services and to provide early detection and prevention when problems are likely to occur.

So far so good. So why were CARE and the Christian Institute opposed to this, to the extent that they were prepared to go to court? And it’s not just some Christian groups. There are secular, political and other charitable groups who are opposed, although the majority of children’s services and government social work organisations are strongly for it.

The main concerns are that it erodes parental rights and that it is so broad-based that it will be costly to implement and will limit more targeted intervention for high-risk children. From initially being a widely accepted programme that had been trialled successfully in the Highlands, there is now significant political and parental opposition, with polls showing that up to 75 per cent of parents are opposed.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Named Person scheme did breach the right to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights and that it therefore went beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Court stated that the aims of the scheme were ‘legitimate and benign’ but ordered the Scottish Parliament to redraft the legislation to comply with ECHR legislation.

I find myself in a bit of a bind here. I support the basic idea of a Named Person because I have listened to many of those involved in child welfare provision and they are generally supportive. There is a need for such a service and it is, as the Court stated ‘legitimate and benign’.

I also question why Christian organisations are taking the government to court. Is this not a waste of money? Does it really help the Christian witness? Why is this issue so important?

But when you ask questions, you also need to listen to the answers. So I have been asking the Scottish Government, CARE and others involved, and I actually took the time to read the whole judgment. Here are the main lessons I have learned.

It is wrong for anyone to claim that the Named Person scheme is “dead in the water”. I realise that when money, time and effort has been invested in a particular action there is a temptation to talk it up, for ourselves and our supporters, but we still have to be honest and measured. The fact is that, barring a significant change in circumstances, the NP scheme will go ahead. The Scottish Government has a clear majority in the Scottish Parliament and now this has been made a point of principle and pride, they will not back down.

Given that SNP MSPs are forbidden from disagreeing with any aspect of party policy and that their party discipline is so tight it is unlikely that any MSP will break ranks. So the government will change the legislation, tighten it up and then pass it in a form that the court will allow. At most, unless there is a major change of heart, the most that will happen is that it will be delayed for a few months.

However, this may turn out to be a real Achilles heel for the SNP, because it is a deeply unpopular policy and the court’s ruling will not help that. Hence the almost desperate spin being put on it by the Scottish Government.

It is also wrong for the Scottish Government to claim that the Supreme Court decision was in any sense a victory for them. By a majority of five to zero (which given that fact that cases that come to the Supreme Court tend by definition to be highly contested and controversial is itself extraordinary), without any dissent, the Court has declared that one of their Acts is illegal. This was as great a victory for the Scottish Government as Culloden was for the Jacobites, or Pearl Harbour for the Americans! The denial of their defeat and the attempt to spin it as victory does not reflect well on the SNP.

What is even more concerning is the potential harm that this legislation could have been used for. This is what the Supreme Court recognised. In a stunning citation as part of their judgment they declared:

Named Person

Here we have the Supreme Court warning the government that it is in danger of behaving in a totalitarian manner. Why? Despite Nicola Sturgeon suggesting that the Named Person scheme is voluntary, it is not. It is a compulsory scheme. Every child in Scotland has to have a Named Person, whether they want it or not. This is not about targeting particular needs or dangers; it is about attempting to identify them by making it compulsory. A case can be made for this if it was only about preventing child abuse. But the Scottish Government has made the scheme about much more because they have made the NP responsible for ‘child well-being’. This creates an open door for abuse, because it is so ill-defined. This would not be the first time that well-intentioned legislation ended up being used for harm. What if the Named Person wants to enquire about what kind of values and views the child is being brought up with? Let me give one example.

In June of this year I was asked by Barnardos if my church would be willing to partner with them on the question of adoption. I was very interested in doing so and looked forward to the discussion, when I got a somewhat embarrassed phone call from their representative saying that they had been instructed from higher up in the organisation not to partner with us because we did not accept Same Sex Marriage. Imagine that. A child welfare organisation were prepared not to provide adoptions because of their ideology on same sex marriage! So much for the welfare of the children needing to be adopted.

Barnardos are supporters of the Named Person scheme. The Scottish government regard supporting SSM as a basic civil right. It does not take much imagination to find parents being accused of putting the child’s ‘welfare’ at risk because the current zeitgeist morality of the State is not being taught in the home. The journalist Kevin McKenna wrote in the Guardian of the Named Person scheme that the Scottish government was: “constructing an illiberal, big government control centre that is seeking to insinuate itself into every corner of family life in Scotland. The family unit, no matter which way you try artificially to stretch it, is the natural authority in the life of every child. The state has many, many tendrils to sense when there is danger, but it has no right to presume to act as a grim, surrogate parent for the nation’s children”.

This is why ultimately I am thankful for the Court action taken by the charities and for the decision in their favour. It allows the Scottish government to change and amend this legislation so that the rights of parents are protected, and the welfare of children best provided for. We can only hope that they will have the humility to listen and act.

CARE and the Christian Institute have done the whole society a favour by drawing attention to the dangers involved and compelling the government to think again. It is a rare bit of good news in a time of seemingly endless bad news. For that we should be thankful. And we should all continue to work for the welfare of all children, and not rely just on governments or courts. The little children are to be brought to the Christ who loves and welcomes them. That is an on-going battle.

David Robertson is the associate director of Solas CPC, Dundee. Follow him on Twitter @theweeflea.


The Scotsman | It’s time for democracy to make itself felt



It’s time for democracy to make itself felt

david-robertson  David Robertson     |   Published in The Scotsman  08 June

IT’S time to Establish a challenge to the power and influence of those who hold the reins of power, says David Robertson

Last month I had the privilege of being a guest of the directors of the Tate at a dinner in London marking the opening of a new exhibition entitled Painting with Light – Art and Photography from the Pre-Raphaelites to the Modern Age. I was invited as Moderator of the Free Church because we have loaned them one of our great treasures – Octavius Hill’s Disruption painting. It was a fascinating evening at the heart of the British Establishment, because make no mistake the arts establishment is the Establishment.

It is the chairmen of companies, the principals of universities and the graduates of Eton, Harrow, Oxford and Cambridge who are largely the patrons and controllers of the arts. And this is not just true of the arts. The political, economic, media, educational and arts establishments are all just sub-branches of the same establishment. We see this in so many ways and in my view it is leading to a dangerous democratic deficit.

One example is illustrated by the recent furore surrounding the extraordinary call of Kathy Warwick, CEO of the Royal College of Midwives to allow abortion up to full term, without consulting her members. Not only does this illustrate the increasing tendency of our elites to decide what to do first and then “consult” afterwards, but it shows how incestuous the Establishment is. Kathy Warwick is also chair of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service that support this policy.

Another example is the whole question of the EU referendum debate. At the Tate dinner one of the speakers made a reference to the EU debate that made it perfectly clear that the Establishment are totally against a Brexit. The Tate receives funding and support from the EU. Meanwhile a student from Edinburgh University told me they had received a visit in their halls from the university urging her to vote to stay in the EU. British university principals are of course strongly in support of the EU – after all they receive over €900 million in support. Meanwhile bosses of companies who get subsidies from the EU send their workers letters warning about the loss of jobs. Scientific research companies send out YouTube videos and social media posts about the threat to scientific funding to their staff, which is then usually passed on. You see the pattern. I have yet to receive anything pro-EU that does not come from organisations funded by the EU.

But what about NGO’s (non-governmental organisations) such as charities? Surely they are independent and offer independent advice? The EU gives €2 billion per year to NGOs. He who pays the piper calls the tune. One example is the refugee’s charity – International Rescue Committee that received £23m from the EU. It’s chairman, David Miliband, recently spoke out against Boris Johnson and in favour of the EU. Doubtless the fact that the £23m from the EU helped cover his £400,000 annual salary was a factor. The trouble is that whilst many larger charities are non-government, they are not non-Establishment. It is difficult to see how an organisation can call itself an independent charity if it relies on government finance to fund itself.

Perhaps we need a new Disruption? One where the cosy cabals of the elites are challenged by the re-establishment of a democracy based on an equal, educated and engaged electorate who genuinely get to choose our own leaders. Or maybe we should just get on with eating our cake and let our betters run the show?





Read more:
Follow us: @TheScotsman on Twitter | TheScotsmanNewspaper on Facebook

Scotsman: Comment: LGBTI discussion more like a rally than a debate


Comment: LGBTI discussion more like a rally than a debate

WORRYINGLY major change to take place without talks, writes David Robertson

When is a debate not a debate? That question crossed my mind when I watched the recent LGBTI Scottish Parliamentary leaders debate. The trouble was that there was no debate. It was more like a religious/political rally as each of the party leaders fell over themselves to declare how LGBTI friendly they were and to offer ever more ‘rights’ to the 250 people assembled there.

There is a troubling trend in Scottish politics for major change to take place, especially on ‘moral’ issues ,without proper debate, rational thinking and real consultation. These are being replaced by virtue signalling, political posturing and emotional bullying – which all have the effect of shutting down any debate.

Take for example the Governments proposal on transgender re-education of teachers in schools and their proposal to allow people to change their gender without consultation with doctors. Apparently it has now become the accepted norm amongst our political elites that we get to choose our own gender, in the same way that we get to choose our name. We have one assigned to us at birth, and if we don’t like it later on we can just change it. All of sudden by government dictate humanity, made male and female in the image of God, has been shattered into a thousand different genders. Without any debate, without any discussion, without any reason, we are being told that if we do not accept this we are all transphobes who are responsible for misery, death and suicide.

Nicola Sturgeon implied that she was disappointed that we were even having this ‘debate’ because it showed we still have a long way to go. Patrick Harvie declared that anyone who believed in cisgender is equivalent to being a racist. And of course none of the political elites will challenge this. Why? Because to do so would result in political suicide. It’s not just the abuse that follows but in effect to disagree with any aspect of the LGBTI+ agenda is to excluded from polite (ie.elite) society. I know of many journalists, editors, politicians, doctors and educators who agree with my position but know that it is more than their job is worth to dare express any disagreement with the new position. We no longer have government by the people for the people. We have government by focus/lobby groups for focus/lobby groups. If you have the money and the media you run the show. Forget reason, forget truth, forget democracy.

Four out of the six party leaders in Scotland are gay. I don’t care. That should not be a factor unless you believe in quotas for politicians, or unless it is being used to push an agenda for the 1 per cent of the population at the expense of the 99 per cent . And therein lies another problem.

The real issue in Scottish education is not that we need to spend millions re-educating teachers in LGBT issues, or indoctrinating children (Kezia Dugdale even argued that LGBT teaching should be in every subject). The main issue is the real inequality that exists between rich and poor in educational outcomes.

That issue is far more difficult to deal with and so our political leaders can just make themselves feel good about ‘equality’ by focusing on the 1 per cent special interest group and forget the poor who apparently we will always have with us.

The trouble is that it is even difficult to write a column like this – because I know already the shrieks of ‘homophobe, transphobe’ and the accusations of ‘ignorance, not caring, religious’ are already in the pipeline. It’s become the classic way of shutting down debate – just accuse people of hate speech. Sorted.

Would it be possible to ask our politicians and elites to stop talking and think about the impact their gesture politics will have on all our communities?

Or is real debate not to be allowed in ‘progressive’ Scotland? Is the LGBTI backslapping parliamentary leaders evangelical rally, really the future of Scottish politics?

• David Robertson, Solas CPC


Read more: