A SOURCE within the Scottish Catholic Church has claimed that a targeted letter sent by the Catholic bishops to members of congregations in North East Fife and Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill had been able to affect the outcome of the General Election vote in those constituencies (Catholic Church to be politically ‘proactive’, January 7). The letter urged parishioners to elect an MP whose beliefs and actions accorded as closely as possible with morally conservative Catholic doctrines.
READ MORE: Catholic Church to take 'more proactive' role in Scottish politics
Flushed with this apparent success in influencing national affairs, the “church source” told The Sunday Times that the letter “represented a move towards a more proactive approach to elections”. He or she continued in ominous tones: “This says to MPs and MSPs that the way you vote is monitored, you don’t work in a vacuum.” If we are to take this at face value, then the Church is to step up its political campaigning at next year’s Holyrood elections.
Attempts by the bishops to influence politics are of course nothing new, and since the watershed defeat of their attempts to prevent the repeal of Section 2A in 2000 they have suffered a succession of cataclysmic defeats as Scottish society rapidly liberalised and secularised, a trajectory which we can reasonably expect to continue. It was telling that the huge majority of comments from readers of The National to this story were hostile to the Church’s attempts at political meddling.
READ MORE: Kevin McKenna: Why the vindictive ultras in Scotland’s Catholic church should be ashamed
However, a more interesting angle might be to examine whether there is any evidence that lends credence to the Church spokesperson’s remarkable claim that their letter helped bring about the unseating of Hugh Gaffney in Coatbridge and Stephen Gethins in North East Fife.
Firstly, Hugh Gaffney. He held the seat for Labour with a majority of 1586, which was overturned in December by Steven Bonnar of the SNP, who gained a majority of 5624. Did Mr Gaffney lose his seat due to the intercession of prelates? After all, he had voted in support of equal marriage and abortion law reform in Northern Ireland. In light of this it was surprising that he was involved in a bizarre incident at a Burns Supper in 2018, following which he was forced to apologise for using homophobic language and ordered by party chiefs to attend diversity and equality training. In the 2019 General Election, all but one of Labour’s seats were lost to the SNP in a remarkable Scotland-wide swing which obliterated their candidates regardless of their character and abilities, let alone views on moral issues likely to trouble the bishops. The SNP’s socially liberal policies will also have been well-known to the electorate.
READ MORE: Letters: Religion should be kept out of politics
Secondly, what of Stephen Gethins? He had held his seat by the tenuous majority of two votes, and lost it to Wendy Chamberlain of the Liberal Democrats, who gained a majority of 1396. Were scores of morally conservative Catholics motivated to register displeasure at Gethins’s support for law reform in Northern Ireland? Simply, no. Whatever else might be said about them, the Liberal Democrats have consistently supported social liberalism, and indeed the party never truly came to terms with the leadership of evangelical Christian Tim Farron. North East Fife was one of their key targets due to the miniscule size of Gethins’s majority. Furthermore, there is some evidence that an anti-SNP pact with the Tories was enacted, leading to Tory voters switching to the Liberal Democrats and thus defeating Gethins. Despite this, his share of the vote actually increased by 7%.
Therefore, it can be said with confidence that both results were absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church’s letter to its parishioners. They reflected much broader political machinations and shifts in the electoral landscape, and the outcome of both contests resulted in MPs equally likely to support liberal social policies as their predecessors. In short, the Church’s letter reveals more about the entitled world view of its authors than events in reality.
Dr Charlie Lynch
Glasgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel