Well, having concluded, it is interesting to look back at the GA and some reflection on specific issues.

From my observation and reading, the most significant debate was on the
topic of same-sex civil unions on Tuesday afternoon.  It was
probably the longest debate and most complex from a parliamentary
perspective.  The motion from the council was actually pretty
narrow, just protecting ministers from the fear of disciplinary action
if they were, or were not, to participate in a service marking a
same-sex civil union.  It was pointed out that this was
simply a legal and discipline issue to reflect the legal status in
Britain as a whole at the present time.  However, the strongly
held opinions were reflected in the success of the motion to send the
action to presbyteries for approval, and for the main vote where the
original motion carried by 322-314.

It should be noted that the debate was handled very well by
the moderator and the commissioners and all sides were heard and their
opinions respected.  It must also be noted that this was in
response to secular actions and that a report will be coming to next
year’s GA on the theological underpinnings.  It is impossible to
tell at this point how many commissioners, in their voting, were acting
on the issue as a whole, and how many were just concerned with the
narrow parameters of the motion as it was presented.

Another major issue was the concern over the reorganization of the
church.  The assembly on Monday agreed to an overture to evaluate
the new structure and particularly the new financial implications and
whether it takes away from local churches and presbyteries.  As is
always the case in the presbyterian system, since we are connectional
an adequate balance and tension must be observed between each of the
governing bodies.  I don’t know if it is codified in the Church of
Scotland, but in the PC(USA) the understanding is that power originates
from the presbyteries.

One of the items that I found most interesting was the discussion about
whether to recognize the Highlands Theological College in the Highlands
and Islands University Millenium Institute as a teaching college for
the ordained ministry of the church.  The debate was interesting
and wide ranging, sometimes straying from the specific issue at
hand.  Did the Kirk need another college in addition to the
existing four?  Was the University broad enough to provide the
instruction for ministers that John Calvin desired?  The college
has been described as a “Bible College” without the theological rigor
of the “Ancient Universities.”  (I am not familiar with Highlands
so this may not be relavant, but the largest trainer of presbyterian
ministers in the USA is not one of the denominational schools but
Fuller Theological Seminary, a school that started out with a “Bible
College” reputation.)  In the end
the new college was approved by a wide margin.

Another interesting item came up in a presbytery overture asking for a
review of the “voluntary additional payment scheme.”   This
allows congregations who can afford it to pay a minister up to 15% over
the Kirk’s base stipend.  A concern was raised that the scheme was
applied differently by different presbyteries.  There was a
counter motion to abolish the scheme which was carried by a vote of
225-135.  From watching the news wires this appears to be the
issue which got the most press coverage.  It is interesting to
note that the total vote here (360 votes) was noticeably less than the
total (636) for the civil-union’s action.

Thanks for your interest,
Feel free to leave your observations
Blessings
Steve