There has recently been a considerable furore over Cardinal Keith O'Brien's attack on the Abortion Act:

Cardinal O'Brien said: "We are killing - in our country - the equivalent of a classroom of kids every single day.

"Can you imagine that? Two Dunblane massacres a day in our country going on and on. And when's it going to stop?

"I can't change the teachings of Jesus Christ. I can't change the 10 Commandments. That's what I'm ordained to teach and to preach: 'Thou shalt not kill."'

Emotive stuff, but none of it can come as a surprise. These are the long-held views of the Catholic Church, and views which they have every right to hold. The Abortion Act has been in place for 40 years and has withstood plenty of religiously-inspired criticism in that time. Is anything different now?

Writing for the Guardian's Comment is Free, Tim Luckhurst thinks that there is something different:

Keith O'Brien's provocative speech is a warning. The church wants powers over abortion devolved to Holyrood because it believes MSPs can be persuaded to return Scotland to the dark ages. There is too much evidence that it may be right for any pragmatic liberal to persist in the myth of devolution as a promoter of progressive values.

This presents liberals with a quandary. In general, the liberal view of abortion is that it is a matter for personal morality, not for the state to ban or promote. In any case, abortions occurred before the Abortion Act legalised the procedure, and would continue to occur if the Act were repealed; the only difference is the safety of the procedure itself. But liberals are also in favour of devolution - power should be held as close to the people as possible. Luckhurst appears to have made his judgement: the Scottish Parliament cannot be trusted with powers over abortion, lest it decide to ban it.

Is he right? There are two answers that liberals could give to his concern:

1) If abortion is a basic human right - the right of control over one's own body - then any ban on abortion would be invalid. But this is a legal, not a political question, and it's a question which may not have a clear answer at this point in time. Liberals have never believed that democracy has the power to trump human rights - we cannot vote to enslave our fellow citizens, even if 99% of the population voted for it. Part of the role of the law is to ensure that government does not go beyond reasonable bounds in regulating our activities; this is what the concept of rights is all about. If there is a right to abortion then, yes, the Scottish Parliament would have to accept that it cannot ban the procedure.

2) Even if we do not see abortion as an absolute right, it is not clear that a ban on abortion in Scotland would have any real effect. It would merely mean that women wanting abortions would have to travel to other parts of the UK to get them. In this case, the strength of devolution is shown: if one devolved area makes a law that its citizens disagree with, they have the possibility of travelling to other areas where the law is different. By allowing this variation in laws we, at least in part, insure against the possibility of oppressive laws. It is unlikely that an anti-abortion law in Scotland would survive for long given the impossibility of enforcing it upon the people of Scotland.

Furthermore, I think Luckhurst is being sensationalist in suggesting that a ban on abortion is likely. It is not, and would be vigorously contested if it were raised. To use this vague possibility as a stick to beat the concept of devolution with is nonsensical. Devolution is here to stay, and we have to learn to live with the debates that this brings, even if it means fighting old battles over again to confirm our principles.