A Synod Statement to our People and others.
THE recently established organisation called the Scottish Convention and which has met on stated occasions in Edinburgh, and whose members have been drawn from all walks of life in Scotland and who support various political parties and none at all, has, as is well known, issued a document designated the National Covenant. This document sets forth the desire for a greater say in the affairs of the government of Scotland, by Scotsmen, from within Scotland itself, viz., for a measure of what is called devolution. Copies of this document have been circulated throughout the whole of Scotland and the people of Scotland have been asked to sign it. It is claimed that over one million signatures have been obtained. Members of the Scottish Nationalist political party have taken a prominent part in the activities of this movement. The question of seeking and demanding a large measure of self-government and even out and out Home Rule itself for Scotland, is increasingly being brought into prominence by some of the promoters of this modern National Covenant, which purports to be concerned pre-eminently with the economic and cultural welfare of Scotland. It is significant that there are as yet no official or authentic statistics available to shew whether Scotland fares badly or favourably from an economic point of view by her union to England or what the situation would be if Scotland had a form of self-government or Home Rule. Yet there is this cry from certain quarters for self-government or Home Rule irrespective of what a thorough inquiry into the matter would reveal; and by propaganda the impression is being given that almost all the people of Scotland are whole-heartedly supporting this Covenant and are demanding self-government or Home Rule. We are of the opinion that a very substantial and intelligent section of the people of Scotland do not favour this movement at all; but look upon it with disfavour and suspicion.
There are three principle considerations which we as a Synod (met in Inverness, May, 1950), would bring before all Free Presbyterians, with respect to this matter, while leaving aside the purely political aspects relative thereto, viz.:—
(1) The disregard for the Sabbath on the part of prominent leaders in this movement. A public meeting was held under the auspices of the Covenanters, as they are called, on a Lord’s Day, in Glasgow, towards the end of December, 1949, in order to issue copies of the aforesaid Covenant for signatures to persons going North for the New Year vacation. Reverend Mr. Spark, of the Church of Scotland, Glasgow, gave his sanction for this meeting and acted as the Chairman. Then on Sabbath, the 14th day of May, 1950, the Scottish Convention’s newly appointed “shadow Cabinet” went to Church in Abington, Lanarkshire, to dedicate their cause; and afterwards went into conference in a local hotel for the rest of the day, discussing plans for self-government. Among those present were the Duke of Montrose, Lord Boyd Orr, John M. McCormick (lawyer), Professor Gibb, Glasgow University, and Mr. John Bayne, M.A., LL.B. It is obvious from the above mentioned conduct that the people of Scotland cannot expect from the leaders of the said Covenant the respect or regard which God requires for the Lord’s Day, which has been called the Scottish Sabbath, and is “the holy of the Lord, honourable,” (Isaiah lviii, 13). “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy” is, apparently, not to be a principle of these modern and political Scottish Covenanters.
(2) The presence and influence of an outstanding and active Roman Catholic in the Scottish Convention organisation. Mr. John Bayne, a member of the “shadow Cabinet” of Scottish Convention, is a Glasgow lawyer and a prominent Roman Catholic. As reported in a recent issue of the Free Presbyterian Church Magazine, Mr. Bayne made a speech on what is called St. Andrew’s Day last, before a large and representative Roman Catholic gathering, at which were present bishops and other clergy of that Church. The main theme of Mr. Bayne’s speech, which received special prominence in the Roman Catholic press, was that he and all other members of their Church must from now onwards devote themselves energetically to the task of bringing about the conversion of the people of Scotland to the Roman Catholic faith. When such a person as Mr. Bayne is so actively interested in the National Covenant and a Parliament for Scotland, it is fairly certain that he has official Roman Catholic backing, and that other Roman Catholics are engaged along with him in supporting the demand for self-government for Scotland. We would therefore advise and warn our people, without interfering with their private views on public questions, to refrain from supporting this movement, which may well be used presently by the Roman Catholics with a view to its assisting in their declared policy—the conversion of the people of Scotland to the Roman Catholic faith. Our people should not support in any way the demand for Home Rule for Scotland, without due regard to potential danger to our religious liberties and connections with the Throne of Great Britain based on Protestant principles and a Protestant constitution.
And (3) The danger to the Protestant succession to the Throne. The Protestant succession to the British Throne is secured by the Union of the two Kingdoms in 1707. In this movement, which aims at the independence of Scotland, the Synod see the possibility of grave danger to these Protestant safeguards.
On these and other accounts, the Synod, while seeking to judge cautiously a movement which is yet in its infancy, cannot avoid the conclusion that our people should exercise the utmost care in countenancing or supporting this movement in any way whatsoever.