Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org
Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


The Reformation according to Tom Devine

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> History
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dave Coull
Independentista


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809



PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:27 pm    Post subject: The Reformation according to Tom Devine Reply with quote

From The Times
August 10, 2009

Thank Calvin for great Scots minds

We only hear the downside of the Reformation. Its rigid disciplines led to a cultural flowering

by Tom Devine

This summer, 450 years ago, Scotland was in the grip of a revolution. With riots in Perth, and the sacking of churches in St Andrews and Dundee, the Reformation, led by John Knox, had begun to change the face of the nation.

Within six months, the so-called Reformation Parliament had formally declared the country Protestant and independent of Rome. It was a decisive development. With it, the death of medieval Scotland was accelerated and a new nation began to emerge. In time, the actions and policies of the Reformers transformed virtually all aspects of Scottish life: religious practice and authority, culture and education, the national mindset and identity and, not least, a radically new relationship with the auld enemy, England.

English military intervention had saved the infant Scottish Reformation from early destruction at the hands of the professional French forces of the Catholic Regent, Mary of Giuse, and thereafter Protestant England and Protestant Scotland had to remember their joint vital interest against a resurgent Counter- Reformation headed by the European superstates of the time — France and Spain. The Reformation did not lead directly and inevitably to either the Union of Crowns in 1603 or the Union of Parliaments in 1707, but certainly made these momentous developments much more likely.

Next year historians, commentators and journalists will pick over the myths and realities of the Scottish Reformation. There will be plenty of scope for debate and dispute because in virtually all its aspects the story of Protestantism in Scotland is shot through with passionate controversy and contrasting opinion.

In the secular Scotland of this new millennium, the Reformation usually has a bad press. The Calvinist tradition that has moulded the nation is seen through a negative lens. Its malignant influence is said to have spawned intolerance, oppressive social disciplines, an aggressive and rapacious capitalism, sexual guilt and dysfunction, and warped attitudes to music, painting and the creative arts, which have only been changing in recent generations.

There may be some truth in all of these stereotypes, but they reveal only one side of the coin, and entirely ignore the profoundly positive influence which reformed Protestantism also had on Scottish history. I wish to argue here, for instance, that Calvinism was a key factor inspiring that great flowering of intellectual culture in the 18th century, the Scottish Enlightenment. Such an assertion may seem bizarre at first glance. A mere few decades before the age of Hume, Smith, Ferguson and Reid, the young Edinburgh student, Thomas Aitkenhead, was executed for heresy in 1696, five witches were condemned to death and, in the Scottish universities, avenging Presbyterians were on the rampage, purging the institutions of higher learning of those suspected of Episcopalian and Jacobite loyalties. A rigid and intolerant ideology seemed to hold the country in an unyielding grip. Deviant belief and unorthodox thinking were anathema. Nevertheless, one can still argue that to omit the Calvinist tradition from any explanation of the Enlightenment would be to produce an incomplete and myopic analysis of this remarkable movement of ideas.

We can start with the Reformers’ commitment to developing a basic level of literacy among the population in order that they might read the Bible and comprehend the lengthy sermons which were the new Church’s chosen method of communication with the laity. This issue is complex. Pre-Reformation Scotland was not, as myth often has it, an educational desert. It had three universities, burgh schools and an intellectual elite with very close ties with their distinguished counterparts in Europe. Also, there was no instant educational revolution after 1560. It took over a century before some of the original aspirations of the Reformers became realities. However, by the 1660s it was normal in the Lowlands at least for every parish to have a school. Before the Union of 1707, Scotland had become a society where there was widespread respect for learning. It was not that the old church ignored education. The key difference after the Reformation was that it was pursued systematically and relentlessly as a crucial part of a nationwide religious crusade.

In addition, to see Calvinism and Enlightenment in direct and inevitable conflict, one with the other, is too simple. Calvinism was a cerebral belief system that appealed more to the mind than the heart or the senses. Complex theological issues were constantly debated in lengthy sermons, learned tracts and public debate. From this comes the idea of the “latent Enlightenment” in Calvinism, that its very intolerance of drama, image and painting in the sensuous arts drove 17th and early 18th-century Scottish intellectual culture towards philosophy, natural science and jurisprudence. Arguably, the Scottish Enlightenment’s central focus on trying to understand the bases of human conduct, the ideas which evolved in time into the modern subjects of economics, sociology and anthropology, has its roots in Scottish Calvinism’s obsession with human morality and man’s relation to God.

Not surprisingly, therefore, far from being aggressive secularists, challenging the outdated orthodoxies of Christian tradition, some of the greatest figures of the Enlightenment, such as William Robertson, Adam Ferguson and Thomas Reid, were themselves ministers of the gospel or sons of the manse, such as Francis Hutcheson.

The Scottish Enlightenment, unlike its French counterpart, was therefore a decidedly Christian Enlightenment.

By the middle decades of the 18th century, the repression and puritanism that had characterised Scotland in the 1690s had given way to a more tolerant era. Kirk discipline had not disappeared, and moral supervision of the people continued, as Robert Burns found to his cost on more than one occasion. However, the greater influence of the landed interest on church appointments after the Patronage Act of 1712, the secession of many hardliners from the established Church, and the powerful influence of a new and distinguished generation of university teachers eventually ushered in the Age of Moderatism. It was a time when most of the intellectuals had little difficulty in reconciling the key tenets of Calvinism with the essentials of the new thinking.

*********************************************************************************

Professor Tom Devine is Sir William Fraser Professor of Scottish History and Palaeography, and Director of the Scottish Centre of Diaspora Studies at the University of Edinburgh

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/...t_contributors/article6789298.ece


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dave Coull
Independentista


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809



PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wrote
Quote:
I posted two articles from the Times here. One of them was Tom Devine's article, which I posted under the "HISTORY" heading. The other one was  about  Tom Devine's article, and, because that contained news relating to the current controversy over commemorating the anniversary of the Reformation, I put it under "Scottish News, Life, and Society". But, so far, the discussion under this heading has been mainly historical, and, if it continues as such, rather than about the anniversary debate, I would suggest moving it to the  "History" section.
Since writing that, the discussion under the "Scottish News, Life, and Society" heading has continued to be purely historical, rather than about the current controversy over commemorating the anniversary, so I have taken unilateral action in shifting to the "History" section. This is my reply to Chicmac's latest contribution in the other section.
chicmac wrote:
Calvinism in its various forms did push forward the cause of literacy everywhere it took hold, no doubt about that, but I repeat, what we are talking about here is the exceptional case of Scotland.
I agree that Scotland was exceptional. You offer a reason for this exceptionalism. I say that the reason which you offer for this exceptionalism is only ONE of the reasons.
chicmac wrote:
you will need to establish what was different about the Scottish reformation than say that of the Swiss or Dutch
I have agreed that PART of the difference can be found in Scotland's earlier educational traditions. But there were other reasons, and I have already pointed out some of them. Like I said
Quote:
in European terms, the Scottish Reformation came relatively late in the day
So that was a difference for a start
Quote:
and, despite the clear warning signs from other countries, the old order in Scotland had made little attempt to reform itself
In some not-yet-protestant places, the catholic church HAD started to reform itself, but not in Scotland, so that was another difference
Quote:
a movement which benefited from the experience of other countries
Quite a few Scottish protestants {including John Knox) had spent time in exile in both the Netherlands and Geneva. Benefitting from others' experiences, both what they did right and what they did wrong, should not be underestimated
Quote:
faced an established order which had made little attempt to deal with corruption
The  corruption of the old order took many forms. One was that the old order relied for its very existence on a large occupying force of French troops. Both the French and many Scots had begun to see Scotland as effectively a French colony. So, in one sense, the establishment of a church OF SCOTLAND was a re-assertion of national identity.

Tom Devine referred to a "NATIONWIDE religious crusade". That couldn't happen in Geneva. Geneva isn't a country, it's just part of the minority French-speaking region of Switzerland. The leader of the protestants in Geneva, Calvin, came from the province of Picardy, in the north western corner of France, and was known to express nostalgia for the homeland to which he could never return. So there was no way that Calvinist rule in Geneva could be "patriotic", no prospect of a "NATIONWIDE religious crusade". By contrast, the leaders of the Scottish Reformation were Scots who could and did draw up a national plan. As for the protestant Netherlands, to begin with, it was just that, the part of the nether lands, the low countries, where protestantism had triumphed. The "border" between the protestant Netherlands and the part of the nether lands which was occupied by Spanish or Austrian troops (what later became catholic Belgium) was a religious and a military boundary, but that was all. There was far less of a sense of nationhood than in Scotland.

Powerful princes (such as the House of Orange) played more of a role in the Netherlands than in the Scottish Reformation. Also, of course, there was a big geographical difference. Scotland had the advantage of being mostly surrounded by sea, with only a relatively short land border with England. Geneva had enemies on every side, and the Netherlands would get involved in endless wars for its very existence. Even when William of Orange ruled the UK, he was still fighting endless European wars, and making alliances of convenience in these wars (one of his allies was the Pope).

So, these are some of the reasons why, even though protestants in other places might have favoured far more widespread education, it was less possible for them to pursue this as a "nationwide religious crusade".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
chicmac
Standing in a Council Ward


Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 459



PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dave Coull wrote:
I wrote
Quote:
I posted two articles from the Times here. One of them was Tom Devine's article, which I posted under the "HISTORY" heading. The other one was  about  Tom Devine's article, and, because that contained news relating to the current controversy over commemorating the anniversary of the Reformation, I put it under "Scottish News, Life, and Society". But, so far, the discussion under this heading has been mainly historical, and, if it continues as such, rather than about the anniversary debate, I would suggest moving it to the  "History" section.
Since writing that, the discussion under the "Scottish News, Life, and Society" heading has continued to be purely historical, rather than about the current controversy over commemorating the anniversary, so I have taken unilateral action in shifting to the "History" section. This is my reply to Chicmac's latest contribution in the other section.
chicmac wrote:
Calvinism in its various forms did push forward the cause of literacy everywhere it took hold, no doubt about that, but I repeat, what we are talking about here is the exceptional case of Scotland.
I agree that Scotland was exceptional. You offer a reason for this exceptionalism. I say that the reason which you offer for this exceptionalism is only ONE of the reasons.
chicmac wrote:
you will need to establish what was different about the Scottish reformation than say that of the Swiss or Dutch
I have agreed that PART of the difference can be found in Scotland's earlier educational traditions. But there were other reasons, and I have already pointed out some of them. Like I said
Quote:
in European terms, the Scottish Reformation came relatively late in the day
So that was a difference for a start
Quote:
and, despite the clear warning signs from other countries, the old order in Scotland had made little attempt to reform itself
In some not-yet-protestant places, the catholic church HAD started to reform itself, but not in Scotland, so that was another difference
Quote:
a movement which benefited from the experience of other countries
Quite a few Scottish protestants {including John Knox) had spent time in exile in both the Netherlands and Geneva. Benefitting from others' experiences, both what they did right and what they did wrong, should not be underestimated
Quote:
faced an established order which had made little attempt to deal with corruption
The  corruption of the old order took many forms. One was that the old order relied for its very existence on a large occupying force of French troops. Both the French and many Scots had begun to see Scotland as effectively a French colony. So, in one sense, the establishment of a church OF SCOTLAND was a re-assertion of national identity.

Tom Devine referred to a "NATIONWIDE religious crusade". That couldn't happen in Geneva. Geneva isn't a country, it's just part of the minority French-speaking region of Switzerland. The leader of the protestants in Geneva, Calvin, came from the province of Picardy, in the north western corner of France, and was known to express nostalgia for the homeland to which he could never return. So there was no way that Calvinist rule in Geneva could be "patriotic", no prospect of a "NATIONWIDE religious crusade". By contrast, the leaders of the Scottish Reformation were Scots who could and did draw up a national plan. As for the protestant Netherlands, to begin with, it was just that, the part of the nether lands, the low countries, where protestantism had triumphed. The "border" between the protestant Netherlands and the part of the nether lands which was occupied by Spanish or Austrian troops (what later became catholic Belgium) was a religious and a military boundary, but that was all. There was far less of a sense of nationhood than in Scotland.

Powerful princes (such as the House of Orange) played more of a role in the Netherlands than in the Scottish Reformation. Also, of course, there was a big geographical difference. Scotland had the advantage of being mostly surrounded by sea, with only a relatively short land border with England. Geneva had enemies on every side, and the Netherlands would get involved in endless wars for its very existence. Even when William of Orange ruled the UK, he was still fighting endless European wars, and making alliances of convenience in these wars (one of his allies was the Pope).

So, these are some of the reasons why, even though protestants in other places might have favoured far more widespread education, it was less possible for them to pursue this as a "nationwide religious crusade".


OK The main argument is that Scotland had a particular 'patriotic/national identity' reason for the Reformation though even if true, how this equates to the higher propensity for education remains unclear.

But is even the premise of greater sense of national cause correct?  The 'occupying' French force was there by request under the Auld Alliance so technically not an occupation.  In reality Mary of Guise did use this to suppress protestant activity, so in some quarters the charge of foreign interference would no doubt be made.  The intent to marry Scotland into France would certainly have increased this.

However, compare to the Netherlands during Refomation times.  The Netherlands was a colony in the Spanish Empire, ruled by a Catholic nation and monarchy.  Surely in that scenario the protestant movement there must have been, if anything, a much clearer 'patriotic' movement than in Scotland.

And to bring in the omnipresent elephant, how can future plans for possible merging with French allies possibly be on a par with the rough wooing antics of English monarchs determined to annexe Scotland by forced marraige?  England always has been and remains the biggest threat to Scottish national identity.

So I would question whether Scottish protestantism was particularly patriotic compared to The Netherlands or compared to that which opposed the traditional threat from England.

And even if it was, how does that relate to education?

Clearly, later, education did become important to Scottish national identity as witness the insistence on retention of educational control in Scotland in the Treaty of Union.

But if one supposes that it had achieved that status in Scotland at or before the time of Reformation then my argument is already made. OTOH if it did not enjoy that status then the 'more patriotic' argument cannot account for the difference.  

I still contend that although the need for people to read scripture and the desire to suppress Papery were strong motives for all protestant movements everywhere to create schools for the masses, in Scotland there must have been an extant cultural underpinning which facilitated this even under the very pressing conditions of the time.

The only real set back to the onward march of education in Scotland was the disruptions of the mid 17th C and the invasion of Cromwell etc.  The education Act of 1696 had effectively been passed in 1646 but had to be abandoned due to the upheavels.  It was reinstated in 1696 with alternate funding arrangements.  Otherwise Scotland may have achieved full literacy 50 years earlier than it did.
_________________
"We have catcht hold of Scotland and would keep her fast." - Speaker, HoC, 1713
"No great mischief should they [Scottish soldiers] fall." - Wolfe, Quebec, 1759
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dave Coull
Independentista


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809



PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:09 pm    Post subject: Re: The Reformation according to Tom Devine Reply with quote

chicmac wrote:
OK The main argument is that Scotland had a particular 'patriotic/national identity' reason for the Reformation

No.

I never said that.

I never argued that "patriotic/national identity" was a main reason for  THE  REFORMATION.

That is not "the main argument".

You asked why they didn't have (to use Tom Devine's phrase) a "nationwide religious crusade" for mass education, in Geneva and the Netherlands, to the same extent as in Scotland. You suggested, as the ONLY reason for this exceptionalism, the greater level of pre-reformation commitment to education in Scotland. I am saying that was only ONE of the reasons. I have given several others.

The argument is not so much about reasons for the Reformation as such, as about reasons why, in Scotland, the Reformation appeared to have greater effects so far as EDUCATION was concerned.
chicmac wrote:
The 'occupying' French force was there by request
You mean, like the Americans were, in Vietnam?
chicmac wrote:
The Netherlands was a colony in the Spanish Empire, ruled by a Catholic nation and monarchy.
Although in practice it would have seemed to many people like a Spanish colony, I think how these lands first came under the same ruler was the same way that James VI of Scotland became James I of England. And I think the first monarch to rule over both Spain and the low countries was in fact born and raised in present day Belgium, the Prince of Brabant if I remember correctly, and he was resented by many Spaniards as a Netherlandish foreigner with a funny accent.
chicmac wrote:
Surely in that scenario the protestant movement there must have been, if anything, a much clearer 'patriotic' movement than in Scotland.
"The Netherlands" wasn't a country. It was a collection of principalities. Here in Scotland, we have loads of places with the prefix "nether". It just means "lower". "The nether lands" just means the low-lying territories. That included more than half of present day Belgium. There was no language difference, and obviously there was no mountain range to provide a dividing line. The only difference was, the bit Spanish troops were able to hold on to, and the bit they weren't. In order to have a "nationwide religious  crusade" for mass education, it helps if you have "the nation" clearly defined.
chicmac wrote:
England always has been and remains the biggest threat to Scottish national identity.
Agreed. However, at that particular point in history, Scotland was in the admittedly unusual situation of being under virtual French military occupation
chicmac wrote:
Clearly, later, education did become important to Scottish national identity as witness the insistence on retention of educational control in Scotland in the Treaty of Union. But if one supposes that it had achieved that status in Scotland at or before the time of Reformation then my argument is already made.
No, it isn't. Your argument for dismissing all of the OTHER factors which I have pointed out, in favour of the only factor which you see as explaining everything, is not made.
chicmac wrote:
I still contend that although the need for people to read scripture and the desire to suppress Papery were strong motives for all protestant movements everywhere to create schools for the masses, in Scotland there must have been an extant cultural underpinning which facilitated this even under the very pressing conditions of the time.
Yes, your contention is that is the ONLY explanation which is needed. I say it's part of the explanation, but not the full story.  I say that there are other reasons, geographical and political, why it was possible to have what Tom Devine described as a "NATION - WIDE religious crusade" in favour of mass education. These other reasons include, for example, the fact that the extent, and the limits, of the "nation" were already well defined. This was not true of either the Netherlands or Geneva. The extent and the limits of "the nation" being already well-defined, and being acknowledged by friends and foes of the Reformers alike, made it more credible to aim at achieving mass education within these limits. Like Tom Devine wrote,
Quote:
It was not that the old church ignored education. The key difference after the Reformation was that it was pursued systematically and relentlessly as a crucial part of a nationwide religious crusade.
No doubt there were Calvinists in Geneva and in the nether lands who would have welcomed the opportunity to pursue a religious crusade in and for education systematically and relentlessly. But the crucial difference is in that single word "nationwide".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
chicmac
Standing in a Council Ward


Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 459



PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:54 pm    Post subject: Re: The Reformation according to Tom Devine Reply with quote

Dave Coull wrote:
chicmac wrote:
OK The main argument is that Scotland had a particular 'patriotic/national identity' reason for the Reformation

No.

I never said that.

I never argued that "patriotic/national identity" was a main reason for  THE  REFORMATION.

That is not "the main argument".

You asked why they didn't have (to use Tom Devine's phrase) a "nationwide religious crusade" for mass education, in Geneva and the Netherlands, to the same extent as in Scotland. You suggested, as the ONLY reason for this exceptionalism, the greater level of pre-reformation commitment to education in Scotland. I am saying that was only ONE of the reasons. I have given several others.

The argument is not so much about reasons for the Reformation as such, as about reasons why, in Scotland, the Reformation appeared to have greater effects so far as EDUCATION was concerned.
chicmac wrote:
The 'occupying' French force was there by request
You mean, like the Americans were, in Vietnam?
chicmac wrote:
The Netherlands was a colony in the Spanish Empire, ruled by a Catholic nation and monarchy.
Although in practice it would have seemed to many people like a Spanish colony, I think how these lands first came under the same ruler was the same way that James VI of Scotland became James I of England. And I think the first monarch to rule over both Spain and the low countries was in fact born and raised in present day Belgium, the Prince of Brabant if I remember correctly, and he was resented by many Spaniards as a Netherlandish foreigner with a funny accent.
chicmac wrote:
Surely in that scenario the protestant movement there must have been, if anything, a much clearer 'patriotic' movement than in Scotland.
"The Netherlands" wasn't a country. It was a collection of principalities. Here in Scotland, we have loads of places with the prefix "nether". It just means "lower". "The nether lands" just means the low-lying territories. That included more than half of present day Belgium. There was no language difference, and obviously there was no mountain range to provide a dividing line. The only difference was, the bit Spanish troops were able to hold on to, and the bit they weren't. In order to have a "nationwide religious  crusade" for mass education, it helps if you have "the nation" clearly defined.
chicmac wrote:
England always has been and remains the biggest threat to Scottish national identity.
Agreed. However, at that particular point in history, Scotland was in the admittedly unusual situation of being under virtual French military occupation
chicmac wrote:
Clearly, later, education did become important to Scottish national identity as witness the insistence on retention of educational control in Scotland in the Treaty of Union. But if one supposes that it had achieved that status in Scotland at or before the time of Reformation then my argument is already made.
No, it isn't. Your argument for dismissing all of the OTHER factors which I have pointed out, in favour of the only factor which you see as explaining everything, is not made.
chicmac wrote:
I still contend that although the need for people to read scripture and the desire to suppress Papery were strong motives for all protestant movements everywhere to create schools for the masses, in Scotland there must have been an extant cultural underpinning which facilitated this even under the very pressing conditions of the time.
Yes, your contention is that is the ONLY explanation which is needed. I say it's part of the explanation, but not the full story.  I say that there are other reasons, geographical and political, why it was possible to have what Tom Devine described as a "NATION - WIDE religious crusade" in favour of mass education. These other reasons include, for example, the fact that the extent, and the limits, of the "nation" were already well defined. This was not true of either the Netherlands or Geneva. The extent and the limits of "the nation" being already well-defined, and being acknowledged by friends and foes of the Reformers alike, made it more credible to aim at achieving mass education within these limits. Like Tom Devine wrote,
Quote:
It was not that the old church ignored education. The key difference after the Reformation was that it was pursued systematically and relentlessly as a crucial part of a nationwide religious crusade.
No doubt there were Calvinists in Geneva and in the nether lands who would have welcomed the opportunity to pursue a religious crusade in and for education systematically and relentlessly. But the crucial difference is in that single word "nationwide".


I think you are being unfair in claiming that I have said there is only one reason for the advance of education in Scotland.  On more than one occasion I clearly said that the its advance was aided by the Reformation.  Before Calvin, Luther had outlined the need for education so people could read the bible for themselves.

I think the national cohesion, political and geographical, you envisage for Scotland equates to the cultural entity I envisage.

I didn't claim the Netherlands was a single country, merely that the patriotic reasons to support the Reformation were if anything greater than in Scotland.  The seven provinces constituting the Netherlands went to war with Spain(80 years War).  About a 10 years after the War began they formally united in a confederation (Treaty of Utrecht).  A couple of years later they deposed Philip II and became a Republic. There was a much clearer deliniation protestant = us, catholic = them, than existed in Scotland.  Especially with the Pope being complicit in the original spanish takeover in the first place.

The first 'nation' to achieve parity on a mass literacy front with Scotland was in fact Prussia, an extremely fractuous and volatile area with ever changing political boundaries and governments within its many entities, at the time.

I've actually just read Devine's article and disagree with bits of it but I'm too busy to bother with them just now.



_________________
"We have catcht hold of Scotland and would keep her fast." - Speaker, HoC, 1713
"No great mischief should they [Scottish soldiers] fall." - Wolfe, Quebec, 1759
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> History All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics