Church of Scotland reaffirms opposition to assisted dying
Delegates went on to vote 216-104 in favour of a counter motion which read in part: '[We] acknowledge the diversity of sincerely held theological views within our broad Church [and] re-affirm the Church of Scotland's opposition to assisted dying.'
Representatives of the church's 283,000 members gather each year in Edinburgh to debate issues of church doctrine and practice.
Previous assemblies have focused on topics ranging from same-sex marriage to the consolidation of churches with dwindling numbers.
First Minister John Swinney attended the first day of the assembly in Edinburgh. (Image: Andrew O'Brien) The Church already broke tradition earlier in the week, as former Lord Advocate Eilish Angelini became the first Catholic to serve as King Charles' representative to the assembly.
On Monday, delegates took part in a 'long and emotional' debate atop the Royal Mile — less than a mile from Holyrood, where the first stage of the Scottish Parliament's assisted dying legislation was approved last week.
Rev Dr John Ferguson, convener of the working group which submitted the church's original proposal, said:
"The General Assembly voted to maintain the Church of Scotland's historic position of opposition to the legalisation of Assisted Dying.
Read more on assisted dying in Scotland:
"The Working Group on Assisted Dying has investigated this subject over the last two years and we had recommended a position which would have meant recognising the integrity of the range of views that exist in the Church on this matter.
"However, it was clear from the debate that there isn't consensus on this issue in the General Assembly and the tight margins of the vote today confirm that."
A number of ministers and other church members spoke during the hours-long debate.
John Williams was diagnosed with terminal cancer and has been on dialysis for seven years.
He told the gathered delegates that the assisted dying legislation in the Scottish Parliament was a 'bad bill', adding that palliative care funding was 'a national disgrace'.
Rev John Ferguson led the church's working group on assisted dying. (Image: Church of Scotland) Rev Janet McKellar, whose husband Gordon recovered from esophageal cancer in 2012 after having a prognosis of just four months, said:
'God gives life and God takes it away, we are the people of God and we need to stand with our brothers and sisters, particularly the stance the Roman Catholic Church has taken.
"Stand up and be counted because people are looking to us as the Church.'
Delegates also called on the Scottish Government to prioritise palliative care funding and ensure that 'robust safeguards' are in place for everyone involved.
Dr Ferguson said: "We are pleased that the General Assembly recognised our concerns in regard to the need for robust safeguards should Assisted Dying be legalised and of the urgent need for the Scottish Government to increase funding for palliative care.
"We remain, as a Church, committed to the pastoral support of those experiencing terminal illness with the disability and suffering that often accompanies it, affirming the value of every life, and advocating for the weakest and most vulnerable in society.
"The Church of Scotland remains fully engaged in conversations on assisted dying and palliative care and will continue to share evidence and insights with the Assisted Dying Bill in the Scottish Parliament."
Speaking after the vote, Rev Alistair Cook, who moved the successful counter motion, said: "I was surprised but very pleased that the counter motion passed.
"It acknowledged the breadth of views but affirmed the Church's opposition to assisted dying."
Religious groups are split on the issue. (Image: Derek McArthur/Newsquest) Scotland's religious groups hold a range of views on assisted dying.
The Catholic Church, Scottish Association of Mosques, Baptist Union, and Free Church of Scotland all oppose the legislation currently going through Holyrood.
The Quakers, Scottish Episcopal Church, Jewish Council of Scotland are split on the issue.
Religious lawmakers have largely opposed efforts to legalise assisted dying.
According to a study by the University of Liverpool, MPs of religious faith were more likely to vote against the assisted dying legislation being debated at Westminster.
In November's vote, 57% of MPs who identify as Christian opposed the bill, while 74% of Catholics and 84% of Muslim MPs also voted against.
By contrast, 76% of MPs with no religion voted in favour of the legislation.
While similar analysis has not been carried out at Holyrood, a number of MSPs who hold religious views opposed last week's bill; including Humza Yousaf, who is a Muslim, Pam Gosal, who is of Sikh descent, and John Swinney, who is a member of the Church of Scotland.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
Reality bites for SNP's spendthrift teenagers
T he Scottish government does not always answer questions but it is itself the answer to the remarkable query: 'How is it possible to do less with more?' These should, by rights, be years of fat for John Swinney and his colleagues. Total funding for the Scottish government is 6 per cent higher in real terms this year than it was last year and it is forecast to enjoy increases in day-to-day resource budgets in each of the five years after that. And yet, to hear ministers speak you might think Scotland — a land in which public spending amounts to 55 per cent of onshore GDP — is somehow blasted by the chill winds of 'austerity'. Last week Shona Robison, the finance secretary, delivered a medium-term financial strategy which confirmed what has long been suspected: the Scottish government is running out of money. Barring some remarkable spurt of economic growth of a sort not seen in nearly 20 years, the government will dig itself a £5 billion financial hole by the end of this decade.
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Proof John Swinney DID plan to reward himself with the same bumper £20,000 pay rise he gave his ministers
John Swinney DID want to reward himself with a £20,000 pay rise – and even requested one from the Scottish Parliament, MailOnline can reveal. The First Minister quietly lifted a long-standing salary freeze for SNP ministers in April, which allowed him to give them all a bumper salary bonus. He was also set to pocket a huge salary hike until he performed a dramatic U-turn just hours after MailOnline asked the SNP leader about the pay bonanza. Now the Scottish Parliament has confirmed that Mr Swinney put in a formal request for a personal £20,000 pay rise with the parliament's pay and pensions team. It means Mr Swinney was looking to reward himself with a huge salary of £155,000 until MailOnline forced him into an embarrassing climbdown. Last night former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross demanded that the First Minister 'come clean with Scots'. He said: 'This confirms once and for all that the First Minister was more than happy to take a massive pay rise before MailOnline put him on the spot. 'It sums up how disconnected 'Honest John' and the SNP are from the public that it took a reporter's questions to force the First Minister to do the right thing and reject his staggering pay rise. 'However, it remains outrageous that his team of ministers have been rewarded for failure at a time when only this week it was revealed cancer waiting times are the worst on record, sex crimes are rising and housebuilding levels have collapsed.' Mr Ross asked the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether all ministers, including the First Minister, had received a new pay mandate, to which it responded: 'In April 2025, the First Minister, ministers and law officers received ministerial waiver mandate letters.' It means Mr Swinney requested the pay change – or 'mandate' – for himself and all ministers, which was confirmed in those letters. By doing so, he was effectively scrapping a rule introduced by former First Minister Alex Salmond in place since 2009, which stipulated that ministers must deduct the difference between their 'net' salary entitlement – made up of MSP pay and their ministerial pay – and their 2009 entitlement, with the surplus donated to the public purse. Mr Swinney decreed that while the ministerial element of their salaries will stay frozen, the MSP allowance will now be 'equalised' with other serving MSPs. While a junior minister was projected to earn £81,449 this year, that figure has now soared to £100,575. Cabinet secretaries were meant to earn £96,999, but that has jumped to £116,125. The First Minister's own salary was set to rise to £154,731. When MailOnline approached the Scottish Government for comment ahead of revealing the news in late April, Mr Swinney's spin doctor called our reporter just hours before publication and said the First Minister would not be taking the pay bump personally. Our reporter asked when that decision was taken, to which the adviser said he thought Mr Swinney had been thinking about not taking the rise for a 'few weeks'. These latest revelations show Mr Swinney had already embarked on the official process to secure one before changing his mind. When pushed on an exact date, the spin doctor called back to say Mr Swinney had actually made a decision not to take it that morning after MailOnline approached the government for comment. He claimed we had 'crystallised' the First Minister's decision to U-turn on the pay bump. A Scottish Government spokeswoman said last night: 'As has been made clear, the First Minister made the decision to forgo the equalisation of the MSP element of his salary on April 12, in order to avoid any perception that he benefits from his own decisions.'
Spectator
16 hours ago
- Spectator
Henry VIII turned England upside down
Henry VIII, who was born on this day in 1509, is the only English monarch other than William the Conqueror who can claim to have destroyed a society and replaced it with a new one. Catholic apologists like Chesterton are right to see in the Henry VIII saga a sort of secular apocalypse; it was, in Chesterton's words, the 'dissolution of the whole of the old civilisation'. The new England that grew up in its place – by Henry's unwitting patronage – was alien, denatured, dislocating, and altogether more worthwhile than the one that had gone before it. The story of Henry VIII's is the story of an eccentric clique capturing society and recasting it in its own image. From 1529-47 nearly all of England's historic institutions were destroyed. All the things that had given life its shape and meaning were junked: the monasteries torn down and their assets made off with; guilds suppressed; commons enclosed (a fitful attempt by Cardinal Wolsey to reverse this notwithstanding); old customary rights stamped out; the cosmopolitan link to Europe severed. The old mediaeval learning was torn up by its roots and the universities refounded in the study of the Classics. It was England's version of Jacobinism. English society became a series of regulated games in which the prizes were glory and renown But unlike Jacobinism, Henry-ism had no popular backing to speak of. One man's ego; a handful of religious extremists; a few dodgy Giulliani-esque attorneys. These were sufficient to turn the world upside down. Everything that happened in those years happened in the face of settled custom, settled opinion, so-called common sense. The forces that would dominate English life for the next 400 years – Hellenic revival and religious radicalism – were alien ones, the preserve of this small Henrician circle. The reign of Henry VIII was about the conquest of reality by dreams. The England that it gave rise to would recognise no limits but the limits of its own whimsy. The most cherished of these whimsies was Hellenism. Henry VIII's new grammar schools and his reformed universities created a governing elite that looked more to classical Greece and Rome than to the society around them. This is something that went well beyond 'revival' – what took place after 1509 amounted to the splicing of England with the classical world. Later figures like Byron, Charles James Fox, or Alan Clark are unexplainable unless we account for the shrewd paganism that's prevailed in the national psyche since Henry's reign. Grecian stone urns in the badlands of Northumberland, Temples to Venus in Stowe: these were the physical symbols of an alien civilisation being grafted onto the old one. British people were still exclaiming the name Jove at the end of the twentieth century. There are now all kinds of debates about what Britishness really means: 'pretending to be Greek' is probably the best answer. Another cadge from ancient Greece was the spirit of agon – competition. Mediaeval English society was a web of mutual obligations in which everyone had a place. Henricianism destroyed this and replaced it with a competitive free-for-all. Much like classical Greece, English society became a series of regulated games in which the prizes were glory and renown. The England that Henry VIII created was the first to adopt school entrance exams, stock exchanges, adversarial lawyering, markets. It would also invent the Queensberry Rules, along with most of the world's sports. What all these have in common is that they're made-up conflicts regulated by intricate sets of rules and codes of honour. Westminster became the most dazzling game of all. Henry VIII's reign saw the beginning of the process by which parliament was transformed from a boring Diet of burghers into an arena for people's ambitions. As Lewis Namier tells us, by the 18th century, people came to parliament not to represent interests but to cut a figure. Westminster, too, now accepted no limit on its powers of creative invention. The middle ages, viewed one way, was a series of interminable legal disputes between kings, barons and the Church over their rights and the proper scope of authority. The Statute in Restraint of Appeals (1532) called time on all this. In establishing parliamentary sovereignty, it declared that life would no longer turn on precedent-scraping and wrangling over fixed 'rights' that seemed to come from nowhere; that we might, instead, debate and decide things on their merits, revealed to us through reason. The Statute in its full meaning was a thunderclap from the heavens: one of the great triumphs of the human spirit. The social order Henry created had to make unprecedented concessions to talent. Jacob Burkhardt tells us that the tyrants of Renaissance Italy, being illegitimate, could not rely on the church or the aristocracy to help them and had to instead turn to talented individuals of humble origin. Henry faced a similar dilemma: his claim to the English throne was shaky and the break with Rome had made him an international outlaw. It was this isolation that gave rise to 'new men' like Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Audley, Richard Rich, William Paget, and – in the reign of Elizabeth – William Cecil. What began as a temporary expedient soon became a permanent part of the social system. For the next several centuries anyone who was good at their job in England was simply ennobled and made part of the Establishment. With this act, Henry VIII set off the primordial conflict between the 'new men' and the old aristocracy that would shape the country's history for the next 300 years. After the fall of the Pittite regime – the last great flowering of the new men – the cabinet of the Earl Gray (the most blue-blooded in living memory) would pass the Reform Bill of 1832 as a means to finally flush out their old class enemy, birthing liberal democracy in Britain largely out of spite. Amid all this, Henry seems like a man out of time, eerily out of place in his own age. He appears to us as a Subjective Man of the 19th century – full of introspection, rumination, and self-reproach. In him we can see all the defining traits of a modern person. The capacity for romantic love. The prickly amour-propre. The consuming neediness. Henry is familiar to us in a way that the Sun King Louis XIV – who lived 150 years later – is not. When Henry VIII came to the throne, England was a normal European country. By 1700 it was a lunar landscape: its countryside a work of complete artifice, with shaped topiaries, carved hedges and artificial lakes; blasted heaths created by deforestation; farmers replaced with sheep by Act of Parliament; dotted everywhere with imitation Greco-Roman temples. Its neighbours thought its people were dangerous lunatics and had only recently ceased to treat it as a rogue state. By pure will, England had been made as remote and peripheral to the continent as Russia. Does the England that Henry VIII created still exist? The grammar schools have largely been abolished and the last of England's pagan virtues were exorcised by New Labour. The country is once again ruled by dull landowners who believe in human rights. One part remains. Parliamentary sovereignty – the master-mechanism of Henry's system – is still in operation. If the English people should ever tire of their 'Rolls Royce' institutions, their fixed international obligations, or what's being demanded of them in the name of human rights, then they, uniquely in the western world, have the ready means to change them. It'll be there to hand – should the English ever want to turn the world upside down again. The idea that we can examine the values and systems by which we're ruled, find them wanting, and choose different ones; or, really, the idea that the world belongs to the living. That is Henry's ultimate bequest.
