Putting Scaffolding On The Cross- "Creation Science" And Apologetics

My tooth was really hurting. Couldn't ignore the pain while singing the choruses. Hurried out, seeing if there were a stall that sold aspirin or something like that.

This was Wolfsburg in the summer of 1995, and I was at the Operation Mobilisation Love Europe conference, before we went off to our short-term mission teams.

Nipping out I came across another guy I had chatted with briefly beforehand, and he was clearly troubled about something, so I asked him what it was. He explained that he was unsure about creation-evolution issues. I mentioned that there are a wide range of views among Christians, and that there were a few hardline recent creationists there for whom it was a salvation issue (I had already been informed by one of them that I was not a Christian) but that these people were a minority.

And as I got up to go, he shared with me that he could no longer believe in the Resurrection. Now, my own conversion sprang from me realising that Jesus rising from the grave was the logical explanation of the events of the first Easter Sunday (sorry, I cannot give an exciting conversion story- it was just scientific and logical). He would think about what I said, and as my toothache had gone, I went back in to join the worship.

Before the last day, he went home as he no longer considered himself a Christian. And for some, there was not the sadness that I felt for him, but the gloating. They knew from the first time they met him that he wasn't really a Christian. And the thing that stood out for me was that the big deal was that he didn't believe in recent creationism, not that he didn't believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

When I was back in England I did write to assure him I was praying for him and to tell him to contact me (the days before email) if he needed to discuss anything. Never heard back.

As a coda to this, these are the days of social media. Go to Facebook, put in his first name (I couldn't remember his surname), search, then narrow it down by location and then appears someone who has the same first name and what I am now sure is his surname. Contact or no contact? And if so, what do I say?

A few years later I was given the chance to do a PhD in Astronomy at St Andrews University. And if people know you are a Christian and a scientist then the questions follow.

In particular you will be presented with the little faith-strengthening arguments from science that people learned at Sunday school- which are often along the lines of "Science cannot explain X, therefore God" and are quite frequently "scientific mysteries" which had already been solved by then yet were still presented as things scientists couldn't explain.

Then there would be creationist magazines passed to me to look at....

Can I just say, if you wish to use a half-life as proof the Earth is young, please understand what a half-life is. Yes, after one half-life, half of a radioactive material will have changed into something else and only half of it left. After two half-lifes, half of what is left has changed, so a quarter of the original material is left. It isn't that after one half-life, half the material changes and that after the second half-life the other half changes.

And please try to understand what the Second Law of Thermodynamics actually says.

And I have never come across any example of a simple Christian with the Book of Genesis in their hand reduce an "evolutionist scientist" to sobbing "I don't know! I don't know!"

So, what things do I want to note?

1- Put the matter in perspective

Take the example above. Yes, recent creationism is a viewpoint held by some Christians. But as well as what you believe being important, is how you believe it.

I don't mean what your reasons are for recent creationism, but what your emphasis is on it. Is it something you believe but accept others differ on? Is it something that should take its place alongside the Trinity etc. as part of doctrinal creeds and statements of faith? Or has it gone further and reached the stage of being the be-all-and-end-all of Christian doctrine? If your idea of a Christian Union mission would be getting someone in to give a series of talks about the universe being only a few thousand years old, then yes, maybe such a missioner would be speaking truth but he or she would not be presenting Christ crucified. Even if the universe young, which is the Gospel message that needs to be proclaimed- Jesus's death or a young Earth?

There is something I sometimes say- one man's hardliner is another man's heretic. Yes, you might make a young Earth a salvation issue, but other Christians would have an issue that you feel you were "done as a baby". On almost any secondary issue there will be Christians who put too high an emphasis on it and who, in the old phrase "major on minors", and you cannot keep all of them happy all the time.

Recent creationists I have encounter vary from those who happily recognise ancient creationist and theistic evolutionists who have accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour to be their brothers and sisters in Christ to those for whom a young Earth is a salvation issue.

2- Science develops by surprises

By the end of the nineteenth century, physics was seen as complete. Then came relativity and quantum mechanics.

When I've had creationist magazines shoved into my hand, sometimes a song-and-dance routine is made of scientists being surprised by a discovery. There are two paths you can take.

The first is to look again, to ask other scientists to examine the case, to do some detective work, to re-analyse, to move the science on, and maybe a new theory will arise or an explanation as to why there is an anomaly. That is exactly how science develops.

The second, worse, path is to jump up and down and declare that "evolutionist scientists" were surprised and interpret this as The Discovery that brings that part of science crashing to its foundations and in bringing part of science crashing down, somehow PROVES that the universe is young.

Oh, and if you wish to take something that only applies to Main Sequence stars and apply it to an Asymtopic Giant Branch star, don't be surprised when astronomers have a giggle at your "proof" that the universe is a few thousand years old.

3- Defend the Gospel, not the apologetic

This is where the Cross has scaffold added to it, to keep it upright. Don't develop a mentality that it is worth going to the stake to defend an apologetic argument.

If an apologetic argument is shown to be wrong, ditch it. Pure and simple. Don't waste time and energy arguing it any more.

Apologetics points towards the Cross. It is not a case that if one apologetic argument is shown wrong then the whole scaffolding around the Cross collapses and we have a worthless Cross lying on the ground of no use to anyone.

If your favourite apologetic is the "god-of-the-gaps" then when the gap is filled, stop saying that scientists can't explain it.

If I point out a gap is filled or that your favourite PROOF of the Bible is based a creationist magazine misinterpreting something, I'm just trying to stop you making a fool of yourself (and of Christ) when you give godless scientists a good laugh the moment you present your "scientific proof" of the Bible to them. All you've done is reinforced the stereotype that "religious people" believe despite evidence to the contrary. What do you want to share with them- Christ or your ignorance of science?

4- Scientists Are Busy People

Yes, your favourite magazine might have published a scientific PROOF of the Bible last month and not a single scientist has written in to respond. Ah-ha, scientists can't come up woth an argument against it.

Actually, it's hard enough to keep up with bona fide scientific journals without spending time going through creationist ones.

5- The End Doesn't Justify The Means

And this is my big worry about parts of the recent creationist movement.

The deception.

No, not just getting facts wrong, which can be forgiven. But the continual relying on "proofs" and "evidence" that have been discredited.

Even if recent creationism is true, why does the movement itself have to rely on lies and deception to spread its message?

Does that honour Christ at all? Is sending young Christians to share the Gospel to scientists using "scientific evidence" that is untrue actually bring one scientist nearer to God?

Pastorally, what happens when your new convert who was convinced by the "scientific proof" learns that his or her pastor- perhaps through ignorance- misled them? Aren't they then going to be suspicious of the genuine arguments for Christianity that were also presented to them?

You never get the recent creationist movement hold its hands up and say "oops, that argument was flawed. Don't use it". Instead, if you try and engage with them you quickly find that their response is to lash out and question whether you are really a Christian if you dare to point out flaws im their "scientific proof".

After The Presidential Election, Next Steps For Republicans

So, incumbent American President Barack Obama has been elected for his second, and final, term.

In some ways, the Republican situation reminds me of the Conservatives in the period of about 1998 to 2003. And, so here are my thoughts about how to reoover.

Look like the America you want to represent.

Look at the Conservative benches in the House of Commons. They are diverse- in terms of race, in terms of gender, in terms of class, and in terms of sexual orientation. No, I'm not calling for affirmative action or quotas, but the Conservative MPs of even 10 years ago came across as nearly uniformly pale, male and stale.

The latest figures I have to hand give 93% of African-Americans who voted voting for Obama, along with 73% of Asian-Americans and 71% of Hispanic-Americans. The demographics of the USA are changing- how are Republicans going to reach out to non-whites and show what Republicanism means in a mutli-racial America?

Hug a husky- or something similar

When Prime Minister David Cameron was derided for hugging a husky and coming up with the "Vote Blue*, Go Green" slogan, his critics missed an important fact- that it was under the Conservatives that the Clean Air Act 1956 was passed, and that the world's first Department of the Environment was set up.

Yet environmentalism became seen as something on the Left.

Find a policy area that is identfied with the Democrats, yet was once a Republican one, and take it back.

Remember that it was a Republican President, not a Democrat, who was responsible for the Emancipation of African-American slaves.

[*In Europe, red is used for socialism and blue for conservatism]

One more heave is not the answer

There was one viewpoint in Labour circles developing between their fourth successive defeat at the April 1992 election and Tony Blair becoming leader in July 1994. And that was the "one more heave" view. Labour had done some changes in policy, and all they needed to do was wait for the Conservative Government to screw up.

Wait for the next general election, then just "one more heave" and victory is assured.

Although this is an example from the Left, Blair understood that things had moved on, and that Labour had to change policies without changing its principles.

Republicans should not look back at any golden era, even that of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, and try to re-create it. Instead look at the guiding principles that have formed the basis of Republican administrations and ask how those principles apply today.

Europe is not a four-letter word

OK, pet grouse here. If Republicans wish to condemn a Democrat policy, which word is the worst insult in the Republican lexicon? "European" of course. Just describe a Democrat policy as European and you cannot come up with any stronger criticism.

Hmm, remember former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush talking about the Swedish education system and calling it "voucherized"?

Yep, Sweden. Supposed hotbed of European godless socialism, coming up with an education system that is a Republican dream.

And no need to imagine how a flat tax system would work- just ask Hungary, Estonia and Lithuania about it.

Focus on the big picture

A party can come up with all sorts of dreams and plans. But these are worthless if you don't win.

If you believe the election of a Republican President and a Republican Congress is what the USA needed then that should be the focus, with there being no room for shilly-shallying around with personal egos. If a candidate for an elected federal post is an embarrassment and/or a liability, cut them loose. Their are higher priorities than their career. For the want of a nail, a shoe was lost. For the want of a shoe a horse was lost. For the want of a horse, the battle was lost.

Choose the next Presidential candidate now

2016 will begin with Des Moines being crowded with politicians, but why wait?

In Westminster-style democracies, an important figure is the Leader of the Opposition. And a good one can successfully portray themselves as the Prime Minister-in-waiting, biding time till the next election.

So, why not in 2013 give the USA a de facto Leader of the Opposition? Someone who is the ultimate visible face of the Republicans, rather than have it come across that shock jocks or politicians who talk about "legitimate rape" are the Republican mainstream. Someone who will develop a national, and international, profile as the person whom the Republicans wish to take office in January 2017. Someone who could go as far as drawing up a Shadow Cabinet, e.g. a Shadow Secretary of State who draws up the Republicans' foreign affairs policies, a Shadow Treasury Secretary who draws up the Republicans' finance policies etc.

After Sandy- American And European Religion

There have been two big events in North America the past few days- first the earthquake in Canada that triggered a tsunami in Hawai'i and now the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy.

Only a couple of weeks ago some of us Brits shared on Facebook our memories of the great storm of October 1987. I wonder what went through the minds of people elsewhere reading it.

Let's face it- Europe is the geographically comfortable continent. Yes, there are floods sometimes. The occasional earthquake. But I can go on holiday 100% confident that I won't come home to a Southampton in ruins after a natural catastrophe.

Tomorrow is Hallow-e'en. Gone is the old superstitious fears of ghosts and witches (and a good thing too) and instead a jolly celebration as Guy Fawkes Night gets eclipsed.

So we tell ourselves modern ghost stories and scares, such as the Mayan calendar ending. We choose to be scared by things that deep-down we know aren't happening.

Surely it's that time of year when the media decide which plague is going to kill loads of us.

Humans are bad at risk.

For example, I used to be scared of flying. I quite like flying now, although my preference within Europe is to go by train. A few years back I chose to fly to Dublin rather than take the ferry from Holyhead, due to time constraints. And when I mentioned that flying is one of the safest forms of travelling, one lady suggested I tell that to people who'd lost relatives in a plane crash.

We worry about plane crashes. Yet happily hop in a car or on a train.

I gather you are more likely to die in an asteroid or comet impact that in a plane crash, as an event like that- although rare- causes devastation on a wide scale.

I visited the USA this spring. The flight from Reykjavík to Minneapolis/Saint Paul suddenly got diverted as we approach Sault Ste Marie, and instead of flying in over upper Michigan and Wisconsin (I was so tired when I got in, that I ended up referring to a state called "Wichigan") we went across the Canadian side of Lake Superior and near Thunder Bay and Duluth. The reason for the diversion was "storms". When I landed I learned it was due to a tornado.

Yes, we do get tornados here. But this was different. The Sunday we were in a restaurant and it came over really dark and as we were going home there was wind, rain, thunder, lightning. And I was sitting by the TV, watching as tornado warnings were given across parts of Minnesota.

And herein lies the difference between the two continents. We live in a fairly comfortable continent. Maybe the decline in religious faith is because we seem to have it all under control, with scientific progress solving all our problems.

North America seems to be more of a frontier place. I'm not talking about the Wild West and wagon trains. But a frontier between the comfortable what-we-can-control scientific world and nature (and even much of European nature is tame and cozy- let's face it, unlike in the USA, I've never walked anywhere in the United Kingdom where there might be wolves or brown bears around). Nature cannot be placated, cannot be reasoned with. The US Senate cannot ratify a treaty made with it. Congress cannot declare war on it. You can build cities and civilisation knowing that one day it will be destroyed and there is nothing you can do to stop that day coming.

And having that deep in the psyche has got to have an impact on religious faith.

Should There Be A By-Election After Crossing The Floor?

Mr Smith was elected for our party and people should expect him to stick with the party. As he has left, he should resign his seat and seek re-election as he is now serving under false pretences.

We are glad that Ms Jones has done the best thing for her constituents and her nation by joining us.

After not getting a position in last night's reshuffle, Mr White has resigned the whip.

Ms Brown shrugged off calls to resign, saying that she has not left the party, the party left her.

The party leadership said that Mr Whatsisname is a high-profile highly-respected politician who would be an asset to his new party.

From time to time, a politician crosses the floor, changing their party allegiances, and there can be many reasons- both those given and those cynically assumed- for it. Seeing the way the wind is blowing, failing to get that government job they know they deserved, or simply finding themselves out-of-step with their party.

There was the old joke in the 1980s that Her Majesty's Opposition was really the House of Lords- dominated by Conservatives. There is some truth in this. Although the emphasis these days is on working peers being created, peerages were often used to kick MPs upstairs- in particular former Cabinet ministers- although the trend is moving away from this. Indeed, among Prime Ministers of the last half-century, Ted Heath, John Major and Tony Blair did not enter the House of Lords (it is possible that Major and/or Blair will do so at some point in the future).

The little joke has a serious point. Those given peerages in the Honours Lists were the older generation making way for the new, formed in a different set of circumstances. There was the massive creation of life peerages under Blair- which, despite criticism, was fair enough as Labour was way behind the Conservatives- and this leaves a Blairite group in the House of Lords who will, unless there is radical reform (now kicked into the long grass), become increasingly out-of-step with Labour if the party moves to the left.

Why do an older generation of peers disagree with the younger generation of MPs? Because they formed their opinions in a different era. A change in leadership can be a change in policy. The Labour that Blair led to victory at the May 1997 general election had different policies to the one that Neil Kinnock led to defeat at the April 1992 one. When Blair was first elected an MP at the June 1983 general election, it was on a platform of nationalising everything that moved (as well as everything that didn't), abolishing the House of Lords and withdrawing from the European Communities. As leader, he got rid of Clause 4, did the biggest peerage creation on record and made no attempt to hide his wish to be President of the European Council.

Parties are organic beings. They change policies. What can be the old orthodoxy can become the new heresy. A long-serving MP can find themselves out of sorts with the party without changing their views.

So, in some cases it can be I didn't leave the party- the party left me.

Whenever there is a defection, there is the common call for the elected politican to resign their seat and fight a by-election. But is this fair?

At one level it is, but even then you have to define what you mean.

Someone who resigns the party whip has left their party. So. as they are no longer with the party they were elected under, should they resign their seat? But, did they jump or were they pushed? If they jumped, then does that mean that if they stuck their heels in and waited to lose the whip then they don't have to resign their seat? Would we end up with courts having to put MPs (especially whips) in the witness box to determine exactly the cirucmstances of resigning the whip?

OK, you might say, allow MPs who lose the whip, or resign it to stay, and let's only worry about those who change party.

But even here there are definitions. Define "party". What if a coalition has a single whipping system? Are they one party or two? In the House of Commons, the third party is effectively the Demoratic Unionist Party now. And if you take a coalition to be functioning as a single party in Parliament (but two distinct parties in the country) then if a Labour/Liberal Democrat government were formed, then that too would be a single party for Parliamentary purposes.

So, picture legislation requiring a by-election to take place. And the Liberal Democrats decide to form a coalition with Labour.

It could then be argued that- if in Parliament a coalition is treated as a single party- the Liberal Democrat MPs have left one party and joined another. So, all of them face by-elections? And if effectively a new Labour/Liberal Democrat parliamentary grouping is a new party, does that mean it's distinct from the Labour one that existed, and therefore Labour MPs should all face by-elections?

And if you say that losing/resigning the whip is not a cause for an automatic by-election, but joining a new party is, then what happens when someone is an MP for a party in everything but name, for example Jim Kilfedder, who was MP for Down North from the June 1970 general election to his death in March 1995- sitting as an Ulster Unionist initially, then an Independent Unionist from October 1975 until forming the Ulster Popular Unionist Party in January 1980- and voted quite frequently with the Conservatives.

How often does someone have to vote with a party to be defined an MP for that party? Consider a hypothetical Liberal Democrat MP who chooses to become an Independent but keeps in contact with the Labour Whips Office and votes with the Labour leadership more frequently than many Labour MPs. Would they be considered a Labour MP? If not, could someone get round an "automatic by-election if you change parties" rule this way?

Some Governments have faced major rebellions which led to several MPs losing the whip- Conservatives over Suez in May 1957, Labour over post-devaluation economic reform in February 1968.

But the one which is most recent is the Maastricht one. This was over the Treaty of Maastricht which had been signed in February 1992. Traditionally treaties were ratified by the Royal Prerogative, although the Constitutional Reform & Governance Act 2010 now gives Parliament a role. However, a piece of legislation- which became the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 was needed to introduce some changes into national law as a result of Maastricht.

One part of the Treaty was the Social Chapter, which the United Kingdom had an opt-out on. In July 1993 Labour added an amendment which had the purpose of adding the Social Chapter to the legislation. This amemdnemt led to a tie (317 votes each) and the then Speaker of the House of Commons, Betty Boothroyd, ruled that she could not create a majority where none existed and gave her casting vote with the Government.

Interestingly enough, one Conservative MP who voted with the Government was Roger Knapman, who was Conservative MP for Stroud from the June 1987 general election until being defeated by Labour at the 1997 election. In June 2004 he made a return as a Parliamentarian- but this time as a UK Independence Party Member of the European Parliament for South West England & Gibraltar.

One Conservative MP who ended up abstaining was Rupert Allason, the MP for Torbay, who lost the whip, but got it back in July 1994.

The next major event was a vote in November 1994 on what was to become the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995. And at this, 8 MPs lost the whip- Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton South West), Michael Carttiss (Great Yarmouth), Christopher Gill (Ludlow), Teresa Gorman (Billericay), Tony Marlow (Northampton North), Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills), Teddy Taylor (Southend East) and John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood). As a result, Richard Body (Holland with Boston) resigned the whip.

Now, the Whipless Nine acted as a group- the joint-fourth largest in the House of Commons. So, should they have been made to face by-elections as they had effectively formed a new parliamentary party in all but name?

The idea that if someone changes party they should face a by-election sounds simple and logical, but then scratch the surface and there are difficulties.

One question is who does an MP represent? There is the old idea that an MP owes their conscience to their constituents. And we ultimately elect people not parties, although party affiliation will play a large part.

An MP is not a delegate- as Joseph Grimond, Liberal MP for Orkney & Shetland from the February 1950 general election until retiring at the 1983 one, noted, the two great issues he supported was membership of the European Communities and the creation of a Scottish Assembly, but these were rejected by his constituents in referendums (June 1975 and March 1979 respectively). Does that mean he was failing to represent his constituents?

There are, of course, occasional high-sounding calls that on "moral issues", MPs should leave their opinions at the dooe to the Palace of Westminster and simply vote, as delegates, following whatever opinion poll a particular organisation had commissioned. Except, of course, sometimes MPs are expected to be in the vanguard, making ptogressive legislation and waiting for public opinion to catch up, or other times public opinion is so wrong and reactionary that MPs have a duty to ignore it. MPs can never win.

But there are now devolved legislatures using the Additional Members System, which brings me to an article in The Scotsman by Brian Monteith, who was elected as a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament on the Mid Scotland & Fife list at the May 1999 election, re-elected at the May 2003 election and lost the Conservative whip in November 2005.

The Scottish National Party has changed its policy on NATO, and as a result, 2 SNP MSPs for Highlands & Islands- John Finnie and Jean Urquhart- have resigned the SNP whip, and have faced calls from within their old party to resign and for Mhairi Will and Drew Hendry to take their places.

Monteith makes an interesting point about list members- they are there because of their parties, and in the SNP's case by members who opposed NATO membership.

On a purely practical level they cannot be removed and it is for them to decide whether to remain as members or not. That has been the rule that our professedly democratic parties, including the SNP, signed up to and have operated under at every election since the parliament was created. There have been ample opportunities for these parties to demonstrate their unhappiness at the arrangement that, once elected on the list, a member should resign from parliament if he or she leaves the party, by calling for a change in the legislation governing the elected status of MSPs. I am unaware of any such proposal. Furthermore, any covenant that candidates would be required to enter into before election that would force MSPs to resign has as much value or force as the SNP manifesto has for [Scottish First Minister} Alex Salmond.

By throwing away one of the SNP’s most fundamental policies the conference threw away any hold it had on Finnie and Urquhart.

Precisely. Finnie and Urquhart were elected on a platform of leaving NATO. They haven't changed their policies- the SNP has.

The thing is, parties change opinions. There are often battles for the souls of parties- someone has to win and someone lose. A change in leader can be a change of course. Some MPs might find that the party is not what they joined.

There is one form of victor's justice which involves either removing the whip or constructive resignation of the whip, pushing an MP to decide enough is enough. What is more dishonest- staying and mouthing support for something that was not party policy when they were elected or resigning the whip (with potentially joining another party)?

I worry that any legislation that forces floor-crossers to face a by-election has unintended consequences. Do we want the Whips Offices to be able to threaten MPs with a mandatory by-election? Is that justice or victor's justice?

Twas The 9 Before Christmas

Have you done your Christmas shopping yet? I did some in June- well I was in Hawai'i and have a principle that if you know someone wants something, then buy it when you see it.

But Christmas preparations come earlier each year it seems. Already there are the cards in the shops. At least when I lived in Leicester they waited till Diwali- although it was amusing to see that Woolworth (shows how long ago this was) would have its Diwali tinsel advertised and then suddenly it would be advertised as Christmas tinsel.

I was surprised a couple of yeara back to hear a radio station do a competition for the 12 days of Christmas- starting on 13 December.

Then this time of year brings out the devout followers of Christmasianity, those who if you tell them that you celebrate Christmas as a quiet religious festival wave tinsel at you and shout "Bah! Humbug! Humbug!" because you are not celebrating the Christmas of tinsel and mince pies and EastEnders that they think you should celebrate.

A line I often take is that Christmas is at heart a religious festival- and we can argue whether it was hijacked from a pagan festival or not till the cows come home- and that New Year is the secular festival which we can, of all religions and none, unite around. One year I am going to open my presents on New Year's Day.

On one level, when I get home from church at lunchtime on Christmas Day, Christmas is over. Liturgically, of course, Christmastide runs to Epiphany on 6 January.

Normally there will be the complaints from the Church of England that Christmas is commericalised and that we are ignoring Advent.

At home I have a copy of the 1980 Alternative Service Book, which was authorised for use in the Church of England from 1980 to the end of the 20th century (31 December 2000). There was still a fair bit of controversy about it when I became a Christian in 1990, and I could not follow all these discussions and arguments about "Series 1", "Series 2" and "Series 3".

But where did the ASB start the liturgical year? With the 9th Sunday before Christmas, which in the Common Worship calendar is the Last Sunday after Trinity. And is today.

Interesting that for about 20 years the Church of England bought into the common idea that this time of year is simply the run-up to Christmas.

Scotland And The European Union- It's Complicated

So, the Scottish Government did not seek legal advice over whether Scotland would be part of the European Union if it became independent.

For Scottish Nationalists, there has been one argument on this- Scotland is currently a member of the EU, and will remain so. And even if Scotland left the EU, then so would the rump state left, comprised of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We have been in a similar situation before. The United Kingdom of today is not the United Kingdom of 80 years ago. Well, it is, nnd it isn't.

So, here follows a (quite lengthy) look at history.

In December 1921, London and Dublin signed what is often called the Anglo-Irish Treaty, and the following March, the Westminster Parliament passed the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922. There was a significant provision- it stated that when the legislation for ratifying the Treaty was passed, then Northern Ireland would have a right to opt out. In December, the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922 was passed, and the devolved regions of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland formed the Irish Free State- the day after this, the Parliament of Northern Ireland exercised its right to opt-out of the Irish Free State.

Under the Royal & Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland chamged its name to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The thing is, no-one says that one nation ceased to exist and two new nations took its place. If Scotland became independent, surely it would be like the Irish Free State situation- one devolved area of the United Kingdom leaves, and the bulk of the United Kingdom carries on.

As to the name of the rump nation, a bit of history- there used to be a sovereign nation called the Kingdom of England (or England for short), and this term included Wales. In July 1706, England and Scotland- which had had a common Head of State since March 1603 (when James VI, King of Scots, had become James I of England) signed a Treaty, and the English and Scottish Parliaments each passed an Act of Union the following year and in May 1707 the new nation of Great Britain was formed.

Ireland had its own Parliament, which, under the Crown In Ireland Act 1542 legislated that the English monarch would be Ireland's Head of State.

In the summer of 1800, the Parliaments of Ireland and Great Britain each passed an Act of Union, and on 1 January 1801, the first day of the 19th century and the day that Giuseppe Piazzi discovered the dwarf planet Ceres, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed.

Looking at how Great Britain and then the United Kingdom were formed, a name could be the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland, drawing its name from the two Kingdoms (well, one Kingdom and part of an old Kingdom) that would form the remaining country.

In one part of the nation, such a name would not go down well! The Wales & Berwick Act 1746 made clear than any references to "England" in legislation (and this was applied retrospectively) would include Wales and Berwick-upon-Tweed. The Sunday Closing (Wales) Act 1881 was ground-breaking in that it applied only to Wales (by tha way, the legislation simply closed pubs on Sundays- from the title you might think that one couldn't visit Wales on a Sunday as it was closed).

Hidden away in the Welah Language Act 1967 is the crucial legislative change that references to England in future legislation did not include Wales. So, the post-1881 system whereby Wales was considered a part of England which might sometimes have special legislation applied to it was replaced by one where Wales was not considered part of England. Note that this legislation was passed the year after Gwynfor Evans won the Carmarthen by-election (July 1966) to become Plaid Cymru's first MP.

The Local Government Act 1972 (in a clause that curiously was repealed by the Local Government Act 1992) settles Monmouthshire's status by placing it firmly in Wales- although not everyone agrees, given that at the May 2011 elections to the Welsh Assembly, the English Democrats contested Monmouth.

So, with history lesson behind us, the logical name for the remaining nation would be "the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland", which would be shortened to "the United Kingdom", although most English people will shorten it to "England".

The House of Commons Library produced a research briefing paper entitled Scotland, Independence and the EU which I am having a read of.

Three models are identified:

Continuation & Secession

Separation

Dissolution

In the first model, Scotland secedes from the United Kingdom and forms a new state. In the third model, the United Kingdom ceases to exist and is replaced by two new states (in which case, the United Kingdom would have to re-apply for United Nations membership and perhaps have to wait its turn to be voted a temporary member of the Security Council, although it could argue that Russia simply took over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic's place).

But, 1706 and all that. What I am thinking is that it would be the second model. England didn't occupy Scotland, or vice versa. Two independent nations had Parliaments that voted to unite. Now, some Scots might argue that the Scottish Parliament was bribed or blackmailed into voting for Union- but surely it is a case that two nations united voluntarily and then- if the Scots vote for independence- voluntarily separated. And therefore, the United Kingdom is in a unique position among EU member nations.

If this model is accepted- and we have history on our side to argue it- then Scotland becomes the EU's 29th member upon independence.

Now, either way, if Scotland does vote for independence, then the EU question has to be finally settled. The current deal is for the Scots to have just one question on the ballot paper, but surely there is space for a second referendum question alongside it, on a seperate ballot paper- If Scotland becomes an independent nation, do you believe it should be a member of the European Union?.

What if an independent Scotland wants to be part of the EU, but Brussels rules that it isn't and it has to join the queue? Well, I can see three options:

Scotland just has to accept it is outside the EU

Independence is postponed until it can join the EU

The United Kingdom has a complicated system of overseas territories and dependencies, which rely on us for the foreign affairs and defence. Why not come up with a similar model, whereby an independent Scotland is considered part of the United Kingdom for EU purposes and no other?

So, that third option could mean that the Parliament of an independent Scotland authorises British minister- after consultation with Scotland's Foreign Secretary- to represent them in Europe for the interim period, and conversely, British ministers make themselves available for questioning by Scotland's Parliament.

When A Constituency Name Dies

One thing that the Boundary Commissions have to deal with is naming constituencies.

I have been going through the proposed new constituencies and when I look at the ward breakdown, I see the names of old constituencies.

One thing that has happened over the latter half of the 20th century is that the population seems to have become less concentrated in the big cities, and more in the suburban areas.

If you go back to the October 1951 general election, one which the Conservatives won narrowly (and where Labour got its highest ever share of the vote- there is the irony that Labour did better in defeat than it has ever done in victory), the big cities are:

Birmingham- 14 seats (Labour 9, Conservative 5)

Glasgow- 15 seats (Labour 8, Conservative 7)

Liverpool- 9 seats (Conservative 5, Labour 4)

Manchester- 9 seats (Labour 5, Conservative 4)

The situation now for them is:

Birmingham- 10 seats (Labour 8, Conservative 1, Liberal Democrat 1)

Glasgow- 7 seats (all Labour)

Liverpool- 4 seats and one shared (all Labour)

Manchester- 3 seats and 2 shared ones (Labour 4, Liberal Democrat 1)

The decline can be explained, in part, by constituencies now crossing boundaries (such as Blackley & Broughton crossing the border between Manchester City and Salford City; Garston & Halewood crossing the border between Liverpool City and Knowsley Borough; and Wythenshawe & Sale East crossing the border between Manchester City and Trafford Borough). But that is only part of it.

One thing to note about that era is that there were Conservative MPs in these cities. In Glasgow, the last Conservative was Tam Galbraith, who was MP for Glasgow Hillhead and died in January 1982- the by-election in March 1982 saw the former Labour Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Roy Jenkins, elected as a Social Democrat, with support from the Liberals.

Liverpool is interesting- the last Conservative seat to fall was Liverpool Broadgreen to Labour at the June 1983 general election. However, there had been boundary changes, and the last Conservative MP was Malcolm Thornton, for Liverpool Garston, who won Crosby in 1983 (this was a seat which had been Conservative at the May 1979 general election, the sitting MP Graham Page had died in October 1981, and the by-election in November 1981 was won by the former Labour Education & Science Secretary, Shirley Williams, elected as a Social Democrat with support from the Liberals).

It seems that at the 1983 election, boundary changes sent Garston notionally Labour and created a new notionally Conservative seat, Broadgreen.

Manchester was slightly better for the Conservatives, with Fred Silvester losing Manchester Withington to Labour at the June 1987 general election.

However, this is a side track. As these cities see their representation fall, then we see historic names abolished. Sure, sometimes a seat will be created that draws heavily from 2 old ones and will be City Name X & Y. As time goes on. names vanish.

In the review that led to the current constituencies, the Boundary Commission suggested a Plymouth North and a Plymouth South. Plymouth historically had 3 constituencies- Plymouth Devonport, Plymouth Drake (whose name vanished at the May 1997 general election) and Plymouth Sutton. To keep the historic names, the Boundary Commission settled on Plymouth Sutton & Devonport for the southern seat.

Their latest proposals bring back a Devonport/Sutton split, but the only suggestion I have made so far is renaming their proposed Plymouth Sutton as Plymouth Sutton & Drake.

[Added 20 October- in line with bringing back names of historic constituencies, I have also suggested renaming the proposed Manchester Central as Manchester Ardwick & Moss Side]

Southampton is an unusual one, as the Boundary Commission avoid the bland points-of-the-compass approach and take the names of the rivers to give us Southampton Test and Southampton Itchen- there is part of the city in Romsey & Southampton North.

One of the original proposals was a Hedge End & Hamble taking part of Southampton Itchen along with the southern bit of Eastleigh and the western bit of Fareham, crossing the river Hamble. I never got round to suggesting Southampton Hamble for this one- which would have been in keeping with the "Southampton river-name" approach.