One person last week offered comfort, leadership and moral guidance to tens of thousands of Scots. Was it a member of the clergy? Was it an expert? Was it even a Scot? In fact, it was a 37-year-old Hollywood actress called Angelina Jolie.

The world’s most beautiful woman and Hollywood’s highest paid actress revealed she’s had a double mastectomy rather than wait to (probably) contract breast cancer thanks to a faulty gene.

Every aspect of her news was astonishing. The Lara Croft star is relatively young and relies on looks and glamour for her on-screen appeal. She is also a mother of six and it was this reality that prompted her surgery and straightforward, unsensational public explanation.

Ms Jolie’s opinion column in the New York Times paid tribute to her partner, doctors and children and described her condition with eye-watering clarity.

For a public drip-fed on the belief that artificial good looks matter more to celebrities than actual health it was a stunning reversal of showbiz priorities.

“My chances of developing breast cancer have now dropped from 87 per cent to under 5 per cent. I can tell my children they don’t need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer.”

Her message was clear. Face up to big decisions, take them early and take them well. You could call it an act of sisterhood, leadership and courage. You could even call it an act of love.

What credentials allow Ms Jolie to offer moral succour to women touched by cancer? None. Indeed what allows her to travel the world campaigning for an end to violence? Nothing. And yet what impact does she have? Massive.

There’s a point in all of this for the faithful gathered today in Edinburgh for the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Religious leaders no longer have a monopoly in the business of advice, comfort or moral leadership. An articulate, prominent individual with faith in reason, medical science, public judgment and family loyalty can be more useful and just as inspiring. Particularly when they show how difficult decisions can be taken, not fudged.

Today the Church of Scotland faces its own hard choice as delegates decide if a gay or lesbian Christian in a civil partnership can be ordained to the ministry. This “black or white” decision has faced the Kirk for years – now there’s the additional threat that dozens of congregations might break away if the “liberal” stance wins.

Now a “third way” amendment has been championed by Professor David Fergusson, principal of Edinburgh University’s divinity school, giving gay ministers equal rights but pointing out that individual congregations can decide not to appoint a gay minister.

Might this compromise work? Not unless there is some agreement about the best way to make a decision. Since the theological commission charged with looking at this rather bottled the task, there currently appears to be none. Lack of method is as disempowering as lack of agreement.

Should theological reference rule the day? Well, each side cites its own textual support. Should the Kirk aim to mirror the views of modern secular society? Opinion polls suggest the majority of Scots back equal rights in marriage. Few polls have tackled gay clergy because it is that unimportant to the majority of ordinary Scots.

So it’s likely the gap between wider society and a discriminating Kirk people will widen over time as liberal youngsters become voting adults and church members. This generational issue is important. Should current Kirk members fit policy around their own views or – like a “roomy” school jacket – build in “room for growth”? Kirk members are generally older than the average Scot – and yet any organisation aiming to have social relevance must be mindful of a consensus beyond its own.

The BBC did just that in the 90s when an audience survey found a big divide in attitudes towards authority. Over-50s were more likely to want “tablets of stone” during news programmes with opinions handed down as gospel by ministers, senior politicians, judges and figures with similar status. Younger viewers intensely disliked being told what to think by the great and good, turned off within 15 seconds of a political “talking head”, cared little about the “rank” of speakers and identified with opinions which most closely mirrored their own.

This was a dilemma – not unlike that facing the “traditionalists” and “revisionists” in the Kirk today. The over-50s wanted a single moral message. The under-50s wanted a range of views. A choice had to be made.

It was – and the under-50 view prevailed. Almost overnight the BBC retrained staff to give priority to participants in events over expert observers, however distinguished. This democratising of opinion-forming predated the explosion of channels, internet, the challenge of multiculturalism and the growth of nationalist movements. It was a far-sighted decision by a (then) confident organisation which understood it had to be ahead of the curve to retain the moral authority needed to justify special treatment through the licence fee.

What has any of this to do with the Kirk? The Kirk once achieved authority in Scotland through its rank and status. More recently it has sought to demonstrate clout with statements on poverty – but then so has everyone else. One unique role has awaited the Kirk since Margaret Thatcher addressed the General Assembly 25 years ago, appearing declare society dead, nonexistent or unimportant.

Society desperately needs skilled and egoless facilitators to help create consensus and momentum among communities which can easily fall into petty squabbling and trivial division. Can a group “terrified” of debate rise to the occasion? Or can the Kirk yet earn respect and a new civic role by the way it tackles this difficult decision?

Surely Prof Fergusson is absolutely right to say there is only one yardstick – which option best encourages the growth of the Kirk as “a community in which we can manage disagreement while maintaining unity with one another”.

My own view is that a vote for equality by the Kirk would have an empowering resonance beyond the gay community, the Church and even Scotland. But that requires more than a narrow, frightened vote in favour. It requires confidence and grace.

As an actress recently said: “Life comes with many challenges. The ones that should not scare us are the ones we can control.”

To read the whole article and comment - click here.

Clunking fist smashes independence – every tabloid headline and weary cliché about the former prime minister is ready to roll as Gordon Brown prepares to stride the boards in support of the Union and a Labour campaign distinct (best not say separate) from Better Together.

Journalists may already have written the story, but there’s no guarantee the Scottish public will smile upon the former Labour leader after three years of self-imposed near-silence. At long last the notoriously hesitant politician is taking a calculated risk. Will that count in his favour?

Will Scots be reassured to recognise the fundamentally capable, moral man who once ran the United Kingdom? Will we think of the glory days when he stood beside Tony Blair forming a solid New Labour wall that Scots believed the Tories would never breach again? Will his time away from the limelight and hurly-burly have produced a more modest, reflective speaker? Will his smile finally look real?

Or as soon as he speaks, will we remember the former Chancellor’s proud boast about abolishing the cycle of boom and bust? Will Labour voters judge him harshly for the long silence over Iraq and recent revelations that he offered 30 marginal seats to the Lib Dems before the 2010 election in a desperate bid to stop the Tories?

In short, is Gordon Brown like Captain Kirk in the new Star Trek movie – a very welcome blast from the past? Or like David Miliband – a walking reminder of leadership failure and pride before a terrible fall? Until he takes to his feet later today, who can tell?

Yes supporters will be in no doubt – but swithering Labour supporters are the constituency that really matters. It’s been hard to gauge the impact of Alistair Darling at the helm of Better Together. On the one hand, Gordon Brown’s erstwhile colleague had a net approval rating of +1 in February compared to Nicola Sturgeon’s +17. On the other, Ipsos Mori last week recorded a three-point drop in Yes support over the same period.

No-one’s expecting more from ex-chancellor Darling than predictions of doom and gloom on any path that deviates from “steady as we go”.

Expectations of Gordon Brown are different – partly because of his new path since leaving No.10. Well-paid international speeches have netted £1.4 million for the office of Gordon and Sarah Brown to “support his involvement in public life” and a number of children’s charities.

Brown has become a UN ambassador for education and will share a London stage with Beyoncé in June as board member of her charity Chime For Change, which promotes women’s empowerment. Perhaps the spectacle of the reformed clunking fist turned feminist could appeal to women voters – currently twice as doubtful about Scottish independence.

Perhaps – but the slightest hint of insincerity or opportunism could be politically fatal, reminding voters that the MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath spends a lot more time rubbing shoulders with the international jet set than MPs (his Commons attendance rate is just 13.6 per cent).

Perhaps, though, we don’t care. Maybe we consider that taking care of constituents, supporting women’s causes and raising money for kids’ charities is a better use of time than sitting belittled with the rest of the cannon-fodder on Labour’s backbenches. Yet, isn’t that what MPs are paid to do – even former prime ministers?

Luckily for Gordon Brown, “Big Man” worship is back in vogue thanks to the surprise departure of Manchester United’s hairdrying, Labour-supporting boss, Sir Alex Ferguson, last week. Suddenly, the tough but fair, hard as nails archetype of the Scottish male is in favour again – even if Monty Python’s Four Yorkshiremen sketch reruns involuntarily each time a tale of abuse at the “Master’s” hands is fondly recited.

But politics is about more than personality. And the constitutional debate is about more than bashing the other side. Does independence or the Union best serve Scotland’s national interests?

Sooner or later Gordon Brown will have to answer some really hard questions to win more than grudging, and potentially changeable, support.

Might the English public vote to leave the EU whilst the Scots do not? Does that prospect matter?

Does it matter that 1,000 people still own 60 per cent of Scotland or that council elections across Britain encourage only a third of the electorate to vote?

Will Scotland’s future constitutional status make any impact on the poverty, deprivation and appalling health record of Scotland’s poorest communities? If not, why not? Glasgow Centre for Population Health has found deprivation profiles of Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester are almost identical, but premature deaths in Glasgow between 2003-2007 were more than 30 per cent higher. This “excess” mortality runs across almost all ages, males and females and deprived and non-deprived neighbourhoods.

Leading health professionals are bravely looking well beyond their own areas of clinical expertise towards disempowerment, grief and lack of family security in the early years to find explanations.

Can Gordon Brown explain why Scots should pin their hopes for a healthier, more equal society on the re-election of a Westminster Labour government when inequality increased under his watch last time around?

Of course the SNP must tackle the same questions. But today is Gordon Brown’s day and Labour’s opportunity to re-energise an electorate behind an alternative vision for Scotland and Britain. Scots might care greatly about the next Westminster election if Gordon Brown grasps the thistle, abandons tit-for-tat debate and unashamedly espouses the social democratic values which once prompted Peter Shore to say of John Smith: “He was too Nordic to understand southern greed.”

Gordon Brown can be the change he wants to see today by using this “local” speech about Scottish independence to launch a new political vision for the whole UK. Or he can let the SNP grab Keir Hardie’s mantle just as they successfully grabbed cultural Scottishness in the wake of devolution.

Dramatist Kevin Toolis recently observed that Blair sold hope and leadership far better than Gordon Brown – but then Blair was “selling” to a largely English electorate. Can Gordon Brown surprise the home crowd with an unapologetically Scottish rebirth as a progressive feminist socialist?

On past performance, I’m not holding my breath. But despite it all, I am still waiting.

To the whole article and comment - click here.

It's amazing what a broad smile can do for an apparently unelectable politician. A belly-laugh turned terrifying Ian Paisley into a Chuckle Brother. A cheeky lad grin did the same for Martin “Commander” McGuinness. Now Nigel Farage has guffawed his way to 147 seats and a quarter of votes cast in last week’s council elections south of the Border.

Of course Ukip’s success was not just down to “cheeky chappie” appeal but an explicitly anti-Europe, anti-Establishment, anti-minorities, anti-claimants and anti-gay political platform. Does this “sea change” mean anything for Scotland?

On the face of it – not a lot. Ukip polled 5 per cent at European elections in Scotland in 2009, 1 per cent at Holyrood elections in 2011 and 0.28 per cent at Scottish local government elections in 2012, losing their only councillor in Fife and coming fifth behind the Greens with a tenth of their Scotland-wide vote.

Unless something momentous has happened in a year, Ukip’s anti-outsider rhetoric has failed to resonate north of the Border. Of course some Scots are hostile to officialdom, immigration, wind farms and gay marriage (the largest planks of Ukip policy). But so far, single-issue supporters haven’t gathered behind a single party capable of challenging the political “Old Firm,” or the two big currents running in political debate – competence to run Scotland and the evolving nature of devolution/independence.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Ukip’s success is like the English riots – theoretically possible north of the Border but anchored, in practice, to a uniquely English constellation of forces and circumstances.

So could Nigel Farage upset the 2014 referendum or the next Holyrood election in 2016? Unlikely.

Firstly, only a party without any feeling for Scotland’s rapidly developing civic consciousness could suggest replacing MSPs with Scottish MPs – and only a man who visits Scotland less than Bulgaria could dismiss Nicola Sturgeon – the Scottish politician with the highest approval rating – as “grossly out of her depth” as Farage did last year.

To read more - click here

 

There’s a lot on the menu this week. A recent YouGov Poll suggests the Scottish public is unconvinced by Alex Salmond’s arguments for independence – are the wheels coming off ? Is it just the effect of lots of negative or indifferent campaigning? Is it to be expected , and part of a master plan?

Lesley was at the ‘Future is Local’ event at the Scottish Parliament and comes back with a few insights ,  including  Angus Macmillan of Storas Uibhist, MSPs in the chamber and the role of AV.

And finally, Barack Obama was a top performer at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner  (check out the YouTube footage ) . Leadership and comedy – is this possible ?