Cardinal challenges McConnell

azzuri · Cardinal challenges McConnell

Cardinal challenges McConnell

The most senior member of the Catholic Church in Scotland has called on the First Minister to take firm action in instigating a change in a law he describes as "state-sponsored sectarian discrimination".

Cardinal Keith O'Brien says Jack McConnell, who is about to launch a second summit to tackle sectarianism in Scotland, should use his influence to bring about the scrapping of a clause in the 300-year-old Act of Settlement legislation which keeps Catholics or those who marry Catholics from ascending to the throne.

He yesterday gained support from Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, who said: "It undermines the call to end sectarianism across Scottish society when there is institutional sectarianism in the constitutional estate."

It has generally been accepted that the clause can only be repealed by Westminster, although the act was originally passed by the Parliament of England and was later extended to Scotland under the terms of the Acts of Union 1707.

It is thought any alteration would also need to be ratified by 15 Commonwealth parliaments and result in changes to at least eight separate acts stretching as far back as 1688, including the Union with Scotland Act of 1706.

It is not the first time the cardinal has pushed for the quashing of the controversial act. He used his place at the First Minister's sectarianism summit last year to call for its repeal.

But yesterday the executive would not answer questions about whether Mr McConnell would get involved in the Act of Settlement debate.

"The Act of Settlement is reserved to Westminster," said a spokesman. "In Scotland, we are focusing our efforts on ending sectarianism which has damaged Scotland for too long.

"As the First Minister recently said, we have made real progress on tackling sectarianism since our historic summit at the start of the year. We will be holding a reconvened summit on sectarianism later this year and as part of the preparations we will be speaking to many groups, including the Catholic Church."

Cardinal O'Brien supports the First Minister's attempts to eradicate sectarianism but insists that he should use his influence at Westminster to encourage a change to the Act of Settlement.

"How can the state in the form of the Scottish Executive claim religious discrimination is wrong, when the state in the form of an act of parliament states that it is right?" he said.

"Clearly, the Act of Settlement cannot be repealed or replaced by the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Parliament. It is a matter reserved to Westminster. I accept that.

"I do, however, implore all those involved in anti-sectarian initiatives, at every level, to accept and acknowledge that this legislation constitutes a blight on their efforts and its repeal would dramatically improve the prospects of their work bearing fruit."

see - http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/67334.html

Very interesting story indeed. Wonder how this one will pan out? Labour certainly won't want to open up this sort of constitutional debate, as it would start discussions about a whole lot of other constitutional issues. It would also be very interesting as many other Parliaments would then need to either reaffirm their commitment to the British monarchy by an Act of Parliament. I imagine many would see it as a perfect time to make a 'clean break' from Britain and become republics instead - including Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

That's the real issue here (constitutional debate), not whether a Catholic can sit on the British throne. Good to see Salmond reaffirm his commitment to this - he must see some mileage in it.

neil8r

I'd rather live in a Scottish Republic but leaving that aside for now, i'd be interested to see a Catholic ascend to the throne and become the Head of the Church of England Laughing

Anthropos

Cardinal O'Brien is talking out his arse.

Strange how this piece of "state-sponsored sectarian discrimination" doesn't seem to bother or have much effect upon Catholics in England and Wales. The reason is because it is an utter irrelevance which nobody gives a toss about.

Catholic schools are "state-sponsored sectarian discrimination", is the good Cardinal planning a campaign to have them abolished? No, didn't think so.

Blackadder

azzuri

more on this story - http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=20822

Scottish cardinal decries ‘state-sponsored sectarian’ bigotry of 300-year-old law

8/8/2006

GLASGOW, Scotland (Catholic Online) – Decrying “state-sponsored sectarian discrimination,” a Scottish cardinal launched an attack on a 300-year-old law and religious bigotry which leaves a blight on the cultural landscape.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, in remarks to the Glasgow-based Scotland on Sunday published Aug. 6, said Scotland remains afflicted by a “shadowy sectarian culture.

He said that sectarianism is codified in law through the Act of Settlement of 1701, which prevents Roman Catholics or those who marry Catholics from ascending to the throne.

"Our constitution contains legislation which describes my faith as 'the popish religion' and defines me and my co-religionists as 'papists'. That this arcanely offensive language enjoys legal sanction is outrageous,” Cardinal O’Brien said.

He said that sectarianism will continue to thrive until the British constitution is changed to amend the settlement act.

“Anyone who seriously believes that introducing legislation aimed at eradicating sectarian attacks, which are often verbal, while elements of the very lexicon of hate they seek to abolish remain on our statute books is indulging in wilful ignorance."

Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell has spoken out against sectarianism and is reportedly preparing to call a second summit on sectarianism in the fall of 2006, which leaders from the Catholic Church, the Protestant Orange Lodge and others are expected to attend. Other moves by the Scottish government include efforts to reform regulations surrounding marches and imposition of rules against attendance at soccer matches by fans caught singing songs considered sectarian or bigoted.

While endorsing government efforts to eradicate sectarianism, Cardinal O’Brien called upon McConnell to use his influence to bring about a change in the law.

"How can the state in the form of the Scottish Executive claim that religious discrimination is wrong,” he asked, “when the state in the form of an act of Parliament states that it is right?"

Acknowledging that the Act of Settlement cannot be repealed or replaced by the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Parliament as it is British law, Cardinal O’Brien called upon “all those involved in anti-sectarian initiatives, at every level to accept and acknowledge that this legislation constitutes a blight on their efforts and its repeal would dramatically improve the prospects of their work bearing fruit."

Change in the Act of Settlement would have to be ratified by 15 parliaments of the British Commonwealth and would require amendments to at least eight separate acts stretching as far back as 1688, and including the Union with Scotland Act of 1706.

Opponents of repeal believe that repeal could lead to a Catholic assuming the throne, and could lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England as the state religion, as the English monarch must swear to defend the faith and be a member of the Anglican Communion.

Scottish National Party Member of Parliament Alex Salmond agreed to support O'Brien's campaign in Parliament, and pressed British Prime Minister Tony Blair to amend the act earlier this year. Blair rejected his call.

British Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor of Westminister urged repeal of the law in June 2002.

The Act of Settlement, he said, "is not so much that it is an act of discrimination against Roman Catholics - which it is - but it seems to me to be discrimination against the royal family."

He said at the time the law needed changing so that Prince William could marry someone of any faith. "I think the future monarch should be able to marry who he wants," he said.

"Talking about Prince William, he can marry by law a Hindu, a Buddhist, anyone, but not a Roman Catholic,” he said. "That seems to me anomalous and I think it should go."

The above article makes some very interesting points. I can't see how anyone can possibly justify having this 'law' in the 21st century.

Blackadder

What? Allow a left-footer into the Royal Family?? I should say not. Why else do we have the Anglican supremacy? They'll be wanting us to let the Pope (Seig Heil!) into Westminster Abbey next!

neil8r

Morph

I do think as Anthropos, there are bigger sectarian problems in Scotland than this Monarchy question. Schools are a good place to start

Blackadder

Come on now, if you try to stop sectarianism, you're just interfering with another of the aristocrats' favourite games we play with the menials.

We need these things to help keep you all in your place. Stop it at once and go back to hating each other. Immediately! That's a direct command from your betters.

parkhead_rfb

ahhhh lets blame the schools. i particularly enjoy how rc schools are blamed before the orange order thats a particularly good one that. its also funny that perhaps the two ways in whch catholics in scotland are most visible (rc schools and celtic) are attacked as being at the root of sectarianism when in fact both were set up BECAUSE of sectarianism.

you cant blame something which was set up in response to sectarianism as being the cause of it. i will once again point out the fact tha at one time glasgow had more anti irish catholic organisations than there were actual irish catholics in the city!

this is a deep rooted problem in scottish socety and the way people look fo easy answers just contributes to the problem.

azzuri

The difference being that the OO aren't state-funded parkhead (well, the last time I checked!). And who the hell is blaming Celtic?

neil8r

happychappy

i cannot see how separting children ata young age helps repair divides. on a lighter note, how about a 'prod' ascending to the throne in glasgow city council, less likely than the pope becoming king!!

azzuri

SLG

Wasn't really a lighter note that, was it.

frank rizzo

The Cardinal is talking oot his erse here if he really thinks banning RC's to become King/Queen is the main problem with sectarianism in Scotland. I'd rather he (and particularly Salmond) just called for an end to the monarchy as a whole.

Although, as an atheist, I'd welcome no religious schools in Scotland, you can't force them to close (the kids parents pay taxes as well) when there's a demand.

The idea of non denom schools is a myth also as I went to one and was taught the fictitious story about God/Jesus etc from a CoS perspective and had a CoS minister for Easter/Crombo and the like.

Intollerance and bigotry begins at home with the parents.

parkhead_rfb

Cado

Back to the age old problem again. For starts, I view this as a 'scottish' matter which can only be resolved in Scotland - from the ground up, ie the people.

Although the Monarch is strictly British - I think it is fair to say that many in Scotland see it as an institution beyond Scotland, pretty well off our radar as far as influence goes. So this statement does puzzle me slightly - if it were a Scottish Monarch (just for an eg here) then I'd have no issue with his statement - it would make sence. But the Monarchy is an institution that is totally bedded within the London 'establishment' that, to be quite frank, nothing anyone could say in Scotland (irrespective of their loyalties) could ever make too much impact on the running of the monarchy - as I say, I think it is an institution beyond us - Protestants included.

I understand there was an point (in an article somewhere) that suggested Scotland may be able to request this - based on the order and manner in which laws where passed X centuries ago - however I imagine that all of that has been surpassed now with the various 'Scotland', 'Devolution' acts etc.

I think England is far more 'sectarian' than Scotland BTW. In Scotland we have many issues within communities, and quite possibly 'institutions' also. I remember looking at the BBC boards a while ago; feedback to a statement made by the Pope - some of it was very very very abusive, if anything of the nature of the stuff I saw spouted there was said in Scotland the 'issue' would go right to the top for discussion. However since England is so institutionalised in its own way (The Anglian Church, the Monarch as its head, also traditionally viewed as almost being next to God on their own right - based on older outlooks anyway) - anti-Catholic feeling is probably so strong within many of these institututions that it is never discussed - its assumed.

The Schools point - I don't this helps to quite frank. I have no issue with allowing individual communities (ie catholic, muslims, free church, CoS whoever else) in having their own schools - but to be done as a matter of course doesn't make sence IMO. I do beleive it puts divides in where before none may have otherwise existed - I wouldn't prevent parents sending their kids to a Denominal school if they so chose - but to have it activily persued to the level it is at present isn't progressive IMO - suspect many on whatever side would be quite happy allowing them to mix.

THere is quickly getting to be a big difference between people who are called "Catholic, Protestant" and those who actually live being a "Catholic, Protestant" if you understand what I'm saying. I'd say for the most part it only exists as a label for different communities and nothing much else.

Though on a broader note - I'm sure someone pointed out that to be the Monarch you have to be a member of the Church of England in order to be the head of the Church of England - therefore revoking this act doesn't change much. If you're CoS, Budhist, Muslim, Orthodox Chrisitian, Catholic - you'd still have to convert - so Scottish Presbertyrians are in the same boat also - something somebody may like to point out to the 'Loyalist' crowd one day.

Blackadder

Cado

There is a point in that....could a non-Catholic ever become head of the Roman Church? Could a non-Presbertyrian ever become a minister in the CoS?

This is were the problem probably lies - the Monarch and the CoE are basically part of the one and the same institution.

Although the Union of Crowns was in 1606 and Charles was Catholic - the change over happened some time after this (Charles 2nd?).

At what point did the Monarch become the head of the CoE? It would appear to be this link that would cause problems.

So, for there to be any progress here, the Monarch needs to be disassociated with the CoE.....what chance of that ever happeneing?

Though it doesn't stop the law being repealed - since in effect it would make no difference anyway since they would still be obliged to convert to the CoE to become King/Queen as it stands.

neil8r

IF Convenor

Henry VIII of England was the first to become head of the CofE. He invented the CofE because the Pope wouldn't play ball and let him divorce his first wife and remarry, so Henry just started his own church with him as boss so he could do as he pleased. Incidentally, the title "Defender of the Faith" was first conferred on Henry VIII by the Pope as a result of an article written by Henry long before his falling out with the RC Church. That's right, today's monarch uses a title from the RC Church.

The Union of Crowns was 1603 when Henry VIII's last surviving child, Elizabeth, died without having had children. Although the Stewarts seem to have all had RC sympathies, the only one to openly convert to Roman Catholicism was James VII. The Act of Settlement was triggered as a reaction to James' Catholicism.

IF Convenor

Oops, Neil8r beat me to it... didn't notice there was a second page.

mal

[quote="parkhead_rfb"]

Anthropos

parkhead_rfb

[quote="mal"]

mal

Thanks for the response Parkhead

Since your aware of the "rest of Scotlands shamefull past" perhaps you could enlighten me.

If your away to gibber about the reformation,fine,however this is only an issue if religous faith is your reason for being,it`s not mine,couldn`t care less, and why the rest of Scotland should be damned by a sweeping statement because of your particular hang-up is beyond me Sad

Of course if this country of ours is so bad and utupia exists across the water it might not be so bad an idea as to go there.

My view of this forum is that it`s a pro-Scottish entity,i think you get muddled up with British views regarding established practices and as such tar us all with the same brush Sad

Just out of curiosity,do YOU regard yourself as a Scot?

Avatar

I disagree with religion based schools - sure teach about different religions in RE classes, but there should be no bias towards one religion or the other. Then again I dont think children should be brought up in any religion, they should be allowed to choose a religion if they wish when they are old enough to make an informed decision. Having segregated schools in this day and age is preposterous.

"it would be better if schools were taken out of state control where the insidious concept of social engineering and dumbing down seems to be the main priority."

There certainly needs to be major reforms to the education system, but I think taking schools out of state control would be a disaster.

neil8r

IF Convenor

And that's a problem because?

neil8r

IF Convenor

The more problems they have the better.

SLG

I suppose it depends on your view of religion. Is it not a parent's right to have their child educated in a manner influenced by their religion?

Avatar

"I suppose it depends on your view of religion. Is it not a parent's right to have their child educated in a manner influenced by their religion?"

I would say no, I dont see any difference between parents who bring their kid up as religious and the pushy parents that raise their kids to be football players or dancers. Children should be allowed to choose their own path in those regards. Anyway if they have to have their kids educated in some religious way then it should be at church or whatever, not at schools.

Children should be educated about tolerance and learn to accept each other despite any differences and I cant see how they can do that when they're in different schools.

parkhead_rfb

ahhh the old if you dont like it go to ireland response fantastic. your your information there is far from a utopia in ireland, thats why i want to see change in the political system there. not only in terms of unification but a whole shift in the type of policies which occur there.

i am talking about scotlands role in imperialism in the past. not only have scots been happy to attempt to subvert other nations ourselves we have also been at the heart of britains constant attempt to do so. and this continues today with talk of 'our brave boys' etc in iraq when they are doing nothing but causing strife in that country. these things shame me as a scottish person.

ask the irish, argentines, africans, palestinians, iraqis etc etc about scotlands history i can guarantee they come up with far more unpalatable acts than the short bread tin image misty eyed scots would rather see.

finally yes i do consider myself scottish but i wont be blinded to the injustices both within this country and the ones we have caused elsewhere just because of it. I wasnt brought up a socialist or irish republican my views are a reaction to the situations i have seen both at home and abroad.

mal

parkhead_rfb

look anywhere in the country, its all over the place. plenty of willingness to blame the english for everything thats occured under the empire and even before it. most scottish people i know arent even aware that scotland tried to rape the rest of the world all by its self before the onset of the union.

I didnt learn of it untill i went to university myself.

mal

IF Convenor

This world domination thing sounds interesting. Do please tell us more Parkie.

SLG

parkhead_rfb

parkhead_rfb

neil8r

SLG

I think the reason people get pissed off with these comments is because people (here) are generally very aware of Scotland place in history and as part of the British Empire. We can't change our history, as for the present, most people here are wanting Scotland out of Britain and would not like to see Scotland continue many of the actions being undertaken by Britain at the moment. It is difficult to blame a people for the past that they have no control over, and it is difficult to blame people for the present when they are doing all they can to change the situation.

As for the mass-media (tabloid) image of Scotland... I agree, but this is not a problem specific to Scotland. And the tabloid image of everything, not just Scotland, is warped IMO. The key for me is, as I mentioned above, education. It's ridiculous how little Scottish history is taught to our children.

IF Convenor

We have still to hear about this Scottish Empire.

I'm also waiting with interest to hear the response to Mal's question: "Since you went to Uni perhaps you could tell me,did Irish troops serve with the British Empire?"

For my views on the Darien Scheme (which may be your idea of "raping the rest of the world") see http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/ftopic1537-0-asc-20.php

I can only think of Darien and Nova Scotia off the top of my head. What else did Scotland get up to?

parkhead_rfb

parkhead_rfb

yes irish soldiers did fight on behalf of the british empire. at least most in ireland would acknowledge this as a source of shame rather than pride. ireland also had great mean who fiercly resisted the empire in all its forms from the united irishmen to bobby sands.

neil8r

CassiusClaymore

I am against all forms of state-sponsored sectarianism, so we should both reform the succession legislation and abolish educational apartheid based on religion.

Easy!

mal

Think this is where i got muddled up,Darien scheme = world domination Very Happy

Just as a wee point,would all the Irish that emigrated to the USA be after the USA got independence or did some sneak in under the British world domination program?

I`m well aware of Scotlands role within the Union regarding the British Empire,it`s history should be taken in the context of the times it happened, however, what i don`t need is because i`m a Scot,that i live in denial of history and blame everything on the English, i don`t ,and i don`t need to go overseas to find British atrocities with Scots involvement -the Highland clearances being one Mad

If Parkhead can get his head out of his historical arse and join with the rest of us in hoping to achieve a vibrant tollerant independent Scotland through reasoned debate rather than point scoring then we have a chance,if not,what`s the point of his University education, if all it did was fuel his bitterness against a section of the Scottish population and tar the rest of us with the same brush?

Anthropos

IF Convenor

Parkie, do you actually know anything about Darien? The idea was to set up an overland route across the Isthmus of Panama and trans-ship cargos between ships in the Pacific and ships in the Atlantic. The same idea is used today in the Panama Canal, except the whole ships are moved from one side to the other. Darien was not about exploiting the local population or natural resources, it was about exploiting the location.

My second point is that it is too easy and entirely wrong to judge history by today's moral standards. It was acceptable throughout Europe 300 years ago to go sailing off to other parts of the world and just take them over. It is not so today (unless you're G.W.Bush). But we are not to judge our ancestors because they conformed to the norms of morality of their time. If we did that we'd all be condemning William Wallace as a mass-murdering xenophobic psychopath. Do you regard Wallace in that light? If not, why the inconsistency?

parkhead_rfb

Cheshire Exile

We are back to the same old thing here. All countries have a shameful past, Ireland, Scotland, England and even dare I say Wales.

If you look at every chapter of history you can find an atrocity committed by one or the other etc.. English Civil war is a good example.

The point has been repeatedly made that what matters is the future, an Independent, tolerant outward looking nation that wishes to get on with her neighbours and not be rules by them.

I happen to think the island of Ireland and Scotland have more in common than what divides.

Even Robert the Bruce saw this post Bannockburn when he wrote his letter to the Irish cheftains prior to opening up a second front there. Check yer history books for that one! Its too late at night for quotes.

I hasten to add I am not anti-English and I don't blame them for all of Scotland's ill's many including the Act of Union are largely self inflicted by the moron's responsible! (Usually, those with a lot to gain/selfish interest).

neil8r

Firefox

The romans had slaves, as did the greeks for their empire building.

I think power should only be judged from whence it came: London.

Just like our poor Irish brothers who had to continue serving on the frontlines of the First World War after 1916 despite the revolution happening.

But right here, right now, we have to judge ourselves on what we seek to acheieve.

"Scotland out of Britain. Britain our of Ireland." Decent enough motto for me to be honest. Add Iraq, Afghanistan, restoftheworld to your tastes. If we don't want to create slaves, then we shouldn't be them either.

CassiusClaymore

What about educational apartheid based on your parent’s postcode?[/quote]

Not sure if attending your local school can be described as 'educational apartheid' as such - ultimately you have to decide somehow on who goes where, and locality/proximity is the obvious way to do it.

Did you have an alternative to suggest?

CassiusClaymore

the existence of the black watch for a long time made me ashamed of the saltire. [/quote]

Er...why? I don't agree with their current mission, but you can blame the goverment for that, not the soldiers.

From your Bobby Sands chat, is it the case that you prefer unaccountable terrorist murderers to armies acting on the orders of democratically elected governments? Surely you don't see a moral equivalence?

Avatar

"my point though is that the same type of imperialism exists today in iraq, ireland, afghanistan "

How does it exist in Ireland today? you cant include Ireland in the same grouping as Iraq and Afghanistan, theres no similarity whatsoever.

Avatar

"Even Robert the Bruce saw this post Bannockburn when he wrote his letter to the Irish cheftains prior to opening up a second front there."

Didnt he send over his brother, then there was a famine and the Scottish troops stole all the food for themselves, depriving the Irish - im sure I read that somewhere.

parkhead_rfb

parkhead_rfb

parkhead_rfb

neil8r

parkhead_rfb

Avatar

"I disagree. you can look at examples all over the world where imperialists have colonised an area then placed on section of the population of that area in charge and allowed them to lord it over the other. it was a great form of control by proxy for imperialist governments. you can see this has occured in ireland, africa and currently in the us/uk sponsored governments in iraq and afghanistan. noteably they also put the previous administrations there in charge."

I agree that it did happen, but I dont agree that it still is.

George

Cheshire Exile

Avatar, you may be right about the food robbing. Although the Irish kerns were alittle partial to robbing all and sundery fellow Irish, Scots. The Scots were partial to applying scorched earth in 'hostile' territory. Ireland at the time was not unified in any real way it was rather like the highlands organised around feuding clans.

History is never that clear cut, but my point about Robert the Bruce, is that he made the historical connection between the ancient peoples of Ireland and Scotland. Even if it suited his own ends

Cymro

I go to a Chapel in Wales which is part of the Welsh Presbyterian Church. Not a Part of the CoE and not in any way shape of form Anglican. It's non conformist. So, can I too moan that people who go to Chapel as opposed to CoE can't become a Monarch?

I've got far better things to be worrying about other than can be denomination become a Monarch ! It's times like this I'm glad I'm not Scottish. Just get on with being yourselves as opposed to worrying about distant things. It's not going to have any effect for years and years and years anyway!

Parkhead: " its the common theme of blame in scoland. scottish people seem to want to pass the blame for any problems onto an easy answer."

Which is what you are doing with your OO is worse than RC Schools etc. Any form of segregation based on religion, sex or race is wrong.

This "Catholics are hard done by" act is getting pretty boring, and definatly isn't solving any problems.

Anthropos

neil8r

parkhead_rfb

parkhead_rfb

George

SLG

Could I hypothesise that if Ireland had been in a position to set up an empire, they would have done. And that it would be a happy land of Guinness and potatoes and all the natives would have been grateful. Nothing like the nasty hypothetical Scottish Empire.

parkhead_rfb

SLG

Yes there is. Are you saying Ireland never tried to set up an empire out of moral superiority to the Scots rather than inability? I'm of the opinion that if Ireland had been in the same position as other European nations who formed empires, they would have done so. And had they done so, it would have been little different from your hypothetical Scots Empire. Just a hypothsis mind.

Cymro

This is all semantics. How does anyone know what Scotland, Wales, Ireland etc would have done had we not been part of Britian?

Welsh people went out and colonised Patagonia. They left Wales as they believed in creating a haven for Welsh speakers to follow their traditions free of England. Possibly had the threat of England not been an issue we'd have found somewhere a bit nearer than Patagonia to colonise.

Scotland tried with that place down in Central America, also Nova Scotia was a form of Scottish Colonialism, all be it under the banner of Britian.

Ireland colonised parts of New England - Pittsburg, Boston etc. Had they not been under the threat of Britain and suffered a famine would they have gone to other counties in great numbers anyway? Who knows?

Had England just been England would they have gone? God only knows.

IF Convenor

When I rule the world you'll all have to do what I say. So there!

parkhead_rfb

Cymro

Irish, Welsh, Scots played a part in the colonisation of what is now the US and Canada forcing the indigenous populations away. As so many Americans claim to be of Irish decent I would say they have done that.

Or does that not count?

parkhead_rfb

where the irish scottish and welsh in power in these places? as far as i am aware the irish in particular carried out the menial tasks.

azzuri

....and does that give them some sort of moral superiority - just because they were doing the dirty deeds and not giving the orders to?

What exactly are you trying to say parkhead?

Scottish people were heavily involved in British colonialism - that we know. So what? These were the choices of individuals involved, not the full country. It doesn't make me feel ashamed to be Scottish at all.

Trying to frame the Irish as unwilling co-operatives in this whole thing is hilarious. Almost all the colonialism that happened, happened prior to Ireland seceding from Britain.

Cymro

parkhead_rfb

neil8r

Maol.Chaluim

IF Convenor

Parkie, most of us here are nationalists. Many of us here are nationalists because we believe that we have no power in a state in which the overwhelming majority live in another country (England).

Your tortured logic, which will always seek a way to exonerate Irish people for almost any wrongdoing has brought you to the conclusion that they were powerless in the colonies and so are blameless for policies carried out by colonial administrations. Might not Scots be afforded this same clemency as they are, and always have been, powerless within the UK? If not, how do you justify this special treatment for the Irish?

It all comes down to you judging our ancestors by today's standards, not the standards of their time.

Cymro

I love it how you seem to see the Irish as innocents in everything Parkhead, yet are keen to get one over on your own country at every turn.

azzuri

parkhead_rfb

were the irish over represented in most wars the imperialists fought?
do the irish still laud a regiment such as the black watch which has been at the heart of many atrocities?

the fact that this thread has mentioned ireland so much is due to the questioning of others not my own, i merely stated ireland was a colony and i dont really see how that can be doubted.

Avatar

"were the irish over represented in most wars the imperialists fought? "

What do you mean by over represented? - of course they were represented and would have taken part in every imperial war fought under the banner of the UK.

"do the irish still laud a regiment such as the black watch which has been at the heart of many atrocities?"

If the ROI was still part of the UK then im sure any regiments that existed then would still exist. You yourself seem to praise the IRA, and im sure many other republican and unionist paramilitries that have commited attrocities are glorified in the eyes of some Irish people. Your argument is tainted with those rose coloured spectacles you have on, one rule for the Irish and another for the Scottish, which is ironic as your arguing about Scottish people having the same view in regards to Scotland and England.

Cymro

Parkhead, Scotland was also a Colony during this time, as was Wales. The difference between these places and Ireland is that they are still colonies. While most of Ireland isn't.

Why is Irish people being forced to do something by Brits. Any different from the Scots and the Welsh also being forced to say, join the Armed Forces. Because they certainly have been forced in many cases. In areas like Caernarfon in North West Wales, the Army constantly do recruitment drives. Not because the people of Caernarfon have an over welming urge to serve Queen and Country, and not because they want to shoot some Irish people. But because the nature of the deprivation makes the Army a good career option in the eyes of many.

As for your Blackwatch comment, the Scots laud the Blackwatch as they are a Scottish regiment with Scottish people. Who whether you agree with why they are there or not, have risked their lives. Lauding the Blackwatch for being Scottish and lauding them for committing attrocities are two very different things.

Your simplisting view really is daft. You certainly do give Nationalism and Republicanism a bad name and are the exact reason why my Mrs' cousing won't vote with the nats - because he was a soldier.

IF Convenor

General James Wolfe, the one who died at Quebec, said of Highland soldiers “They were hearty, intrepid, accustomed to a rough country and no great mischief if they fall.”

No great mischief if they fall has long been the British army's attitude to Scottish soldiers. They are expendable. They have always been put into the front line because they can be lost with little mischief done.

It's not that the Scots soldiers volunteer for all the s**t jobs, it's that their imperial masters keep handing them out.

In the First World War no other country lost a higher percentage of its young men in combat than Scotland did. Only Turkey lost more soldiers than Scotland, but the main cause of death among Turks was disease.

In the Second World War the 51st (Highland) Division was left behind at Dunkirk. They were made to guard the rear while everyone else got off the beach and then they were abandoned to their fate. The rebuilt 51st was put into the North African desert to fight the Afrika Corps and only the 51st fought from El Alamein to Sicily without leaving the field. Everyone else got a rest at some point, but not the Highlanders.

In Iraq, the Black Watch is to be deployed for a third tour.

“They were hearty, intrepid, accustomed to a rough country and no great mischief if they fall.”

I'm damned proud of Scotland's soldiers, but I don't harbour any illusions that they actually volunteer to get killed in such high numbers.