Archive for 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.
|
Dave Coull
|
Reformation and IndependenceI sent a letter to "The Herald" six days ago, and have now resigned myself to it not getting printed. They did print another letter in reply to Brian Quaill, but NOT making the same point as me. Since I think what I was saying raises an important issue, I'm sending the letter here. I considered putting it in the "History" section, but decided that, since it relates our history to what is happening now, and to next year's referendum campaign, the proper place for it is in "Scottish Politics and Independence". Anyway, here it is:
*********************************************
A few years ago I spoke at a smallish independence rally in Arbroath to commemorate the Arbroath Declaration. One of the other speakers was Brian Quail. Brian spoke well, and didn't make the mistake of another speaker, who claimed the ruined state of Arbroath Abbey was due to the protestant reformation. (A lot of the destruction of the Abbey was due to cannonballs fired at it by Catholic English sailors, the forces of Henry the 8th, at a time when Henry was still seen as a Catholic hero throughout Europe, awarded the title "Defender of the Faith" by the Pope).
But some of the stuff Brian is coming out with now is just as wrong. He says "Four campaigns were fought in Scotland by the English armies between 1544 and 1549, and in each case the imposition of Protestant worship followed" - any such "imposition" must have been remarkably ineffective then, because Scotland remained a Catholic country until 1560. What's more, Elizabeth, like her father, was mainly concerned with having the church obey the will of the monarch. She favoured a church with Archbishops and bishops passing on the royal orders. Under Elizabeth, protestants of more radical views continued to be executed for "heresy". The Scottish Reformation of 1560 took a totally different direction, without archbishops etc, and seeking limits to royal power.
I remember years ago hearing a notably prejudiced Rangers supporter on television, dismissing Celtic supporters as "foreigners" because "We are genuine Scottish, but they came from Ireland". Nowadays, we often hear an opposite prejudice expressed, that you can't be truly Scottish and a protestant. Both prejudices are equally foolish. As a supporter of a referendum on independence for Scotland, and as a supporter of a decisive vote for independence in that referendum, I find it particularly stupid when such prejudices are expressed by folk who claim to favour independence. While support for both protestant and catholic churches has declined, Scotland still has a culturally protestant majority. How do these anti-protestant supporters of independence imagine we are going to win a referendum for independence next year? By getting everybody in Scotland to admit the Reformation was a big mistake and asking the current Pope if he will please accept our apologies and our submission? That's not going to happen. But their attempts to make it happen must be a great consolation to OPPONENTS of independence.
Dave Coull
Balnabreich, Angus
|
cullen-skink
|
Not suprised that didn't get printed, to be honest.
Where exactly do you hear it "often expressed that you can't be Scottish and a Protestant?" Who are these people who propose to beg forgiveness from the Pope for the Reformation?
What does "culturally Protestant" mean?
If you follow polling evidence, you may notice that one grouping particularly unconvinced by arguments in favour of independence are middle aged women - I know this from bitter expereince of pub debates in real life! Curiously though, one thing that rarely comes up as an issue in these discussions is 16th century religious squabbles and dogma.
If there is one thing which very much does give many would-be independence backers pause for thought about an independent Scotland (and "great consolation to opponents"), it is the thought of centuries old battles being dredged back out of antiquity, very much like your letter.
|
Dave Coull
|
| cullen-skink wrote: | | What does "culturally Protestant" mean? |
YOU are the one who added the capital "P", not me. I would say that if somebody still thinks that the Reformation was an improvement on what preceded it, then, even if they don't go to the kirk, and even if they have come to hold agnostic or even atheist views, then they could be said to be "culturally protestant". If, on the other hand, somebody from a Catholic background comes to hold agnostic or even atheist views, but they still believe what they absorbed as a child, that the Reformation was a Bad Thing, then, in that sense, they could be said to be culturally catholic. I think it is still true that a majority of the population of Scotland is culturally protestant. Amongst that majority, there will be some who are already committed supporters of independence, and some who are not. Given that we've got a referendum campaign coming up next year, and given that we want every vote we can get for independence in that referendum, it is stupid for any supporters of independence to give the impression that they would reverse the Reformation if they could. | cullen-skink wrote: | | the thought of centuries old battles being dredged back out of antiquity, very much like your letter. |
As a matter of fact, I am precisely the one who does NOT want to re-fight old battles. Brian Quaill, on the other hand, gave quite a good impression of somebody actively seeking to reverse the Reformation.
|
Rinty
|
I would say that culturally, the reformation is evident in Scotland. The very nature and set-up of our national church is based on people first, bottom-up democracy.
It is this healthy rejection of kings and bishops appointed by a higher authority that I see as part of Scottish culture and have no argument with Dave referring to us as 'culturally-protestant', I think we are.
|
cullen-skink
|
[quote="Dave Coull"] | cullen-skink wrote: | | What does "culturally Protestant" mean? |
YOU are the one who added the capital "P", not me. I would say that if somebody still thinks that the Reformation was an improvement on what preceded it, then, even if they don't go to the kirk, and even if they have come to hold agnostic or even atheist views, then they could be said to be "culturally protestant".... I think it is still true that a majority of the population of Scotland is culturally protestant.
Oh well, pardon for adding the capital P: fair point.
However, reasoning that this "culturally protestant" majority (by your definition being people who believe the Reformation to have been an improvement) strikes me as odd: I'll wager you good money that the majority of Scottish people would struggle to tell you what the Reformation even was never mind have an opinion on it.
|
Dave Coull
|
| cullen-skink wrote: | | I'll wager you good money that the majority of Scottish people would struggle to tell you what the Reformation even was |
That kind of "wager" is just meaningless bluster on your part. It's the kind of "bet" that can't be conclusively proved one way or the other, and can't be collected. However, if you are genuinely interested in a "wager", here's one for you: I bet you ten pounds the referendum on independence will produce a majority for independence. That is a bet which can be tested, and which can produce a clear result one way or the other. There is either a majority or there isn't. Dave Coull is my real name, and I will provide you with my address so you can collect your winnings in the extremely unlikely event of you winning the wager. Of course, you will also have to do the same so that I can collect when I win.
How many Scottish people know what the Reformation was, and approve of some of its results? ENOUGH.
Enough Scottish people know that the Reformation in Scotland rejected rule by Archbishops and bishops, enough Scottish people know that the Reformation in Scotland sought to limit the absolute power of the monarchy, enough Scottish people know that the Reformation in Scotland sought to bring about the world's very first system of universal education , enough Scottish people know this to make it really stupid for alleged supporters of independence for Scotland like Brian Quaill to be sounding like they want to go back to how Scotland was before the Reformation. Enough Scottish people know this to make the difference between a damn close run thing in next year's referendum, and a decisive vote for independence.
|
cullen-skink
|
Calm yourself, fella!
You assert that a majority of people are culturally protestant, which by your definition means in general agreement with the Reformation and then accuse ME of meaningless bluster??? When was the vote which showed that?
You may note the subtle change in your own words: Initally it was...
"Scotland still has a culturally protestant majority" but now it seems
"How many Scottish people know what the Reformation was, and approve of some of its results? ENOUGH". Did you ask anyone to arrive at this conclusion? Is a "majority" of people the same as "enough" people?
Also note that to begin with...
"I would say that if somebody still thinks that the Reformation was an improvement on what preceded it, then, even if they don't go to the kirk, and even if they have come to hold agnostic or even atheist views, then they could be said to be "culturally protestant"."
became...
"How many Scottish people know what the Reformation was, and approve of SOME [my emphasis] of its results? ENOUGH"
See the difference?
Anyhow, I've no idea why you think I would be interested in betting against a yes vote for independence in a referendum: It's something I would welcome.
Incindentally, I took the trouble to read the original letter from Mr Brian Quail: struck me as a bit of a tool. Regular writer into newpaper letter pages, green ink, irons his pants, know what I mean?
|
Dave Coull
|
The reason this topic appears under "Scottish Politics and Independence", and not under "History", was explained in my first post. | I wrote: | | As a supporter of a referendum on independence for Scotland, and as a supporter of a decisive vote for independence in that referendum, I find it particularly stupid when such prejudices are expressed by folk who claim to favour independence. While support for both protestant and catholic churches has declined, Scotland still has a culturally protestant majority. How do these anti-protestant supporters of independence imagine we are going to win a referendum for independence next year? |
A question which nobody has yet answered. | cullen-skink wrote: | | You assert that a majority of people are culturally protestant, which by your definition means in general agreement with the Reformation |
No, "in general agreement with the Reformation" is your phrase, not mine, it doesn't reflect either my views or anything I actually wrote. | cullen-skink wrote: | | When was the vote which showed that? |
There's been no such vote, and I'm not interested in having one. The only vote I'm interested in having is a referendum on independence. | cullen-skink wrote: | | then accuse ME of meaningless bluster??? |
Yes, you did indulge in meaningless bluster. Anybody who says "I wager", or "I bet", in circumstances where there is no way of conclusively establishing the outcome of their bet, is indulging in meaningless bluster. You did that, I didn't. | cullen-skink wrote: | | Is a "majority" of people the same as "enough" people? |
Of course not. When Harold Wilson was elected prime minister with a very narrow majority in the House of Commons, he famously stated "One is enough". "Enough" is whatever extra number is required to change a large minority into a majority. Conversely, if some short-sighted supporters of independence (Brian Quaill for example) indulge in anti-protestant rhetoric, "enough" could be the number required to change a majority into a large minority. | cullen-skink wrote: | | Calm yourself, fella! |
So in return for that, here is some advice from myself, freely given. Don't make the mistake of attributing your own feelings to others.
|
William_Cleland
|
| cullen-skink wrote: | | ....I'll wager you good money that the majority of Scottish people would struggle to tell you what the Reformation even was never mind have an opinion on it. |
Really? One of the more eye-catching findings of the last census was that 42.4% of the population still self-identify as Church of Scotland even though only about 10% are actually members.
|
Rinty
|
there will be many celebrations next year as part of the 450th anniversary of the reformation.
It is one of THE most important events in european history and Scotland was at the centre of it.
If there are people who dont know about it then that should change. We should all be aware of the events that shaped our nation and culture, especially an event so momentous as the reformation.
|
Corby Boy
|
Really? One of the more eye-catching findings of the last census was that 42.4% of the population still self-identify as Church of Scotland even though only about 10% are actually members.[/quote]
This doesn't surprise me really. I am one of those people who were CoS christened but not active in attending kirk, it is almost like a badge of identity. Particularly if you live outwith the country.
|
Aventinian
|
| Rinty wrote: | there will be many celebrations next year as part of the 450th anniversary of the reformation.
It is one of THE most important events in european history and Scotland was at the centre of it. |
I certainly acknowledge its importance and all that, but celebrating it?
For all the good that came out of the Scottish Reformation, there was also a lot of bad. The looming corpse of St Andrews Cathedral should be enough to remind people of that.
|
Dave Coull
|
A census is a very different thing from a so-called "opinion poll". A so-called "opinion poll" surveys only a very small number of people, who are claimed to be a "sample" that in some way is alleged to be "representative" of a population. A census, on the other hand, at least has the aim of surveying ALL of a population. It may not entirely succeed in that aim - when Maggie Thatcher introduced the poll tax, a lot of people "disappeared" from the census - but, nevertheless, in at least having this aim, a census can provide more useful information than a so-called "opinion poll" can. | William_Cleland wrote: | | One of the more eye-catching findings of the last census was that 42.4% of the population still self-identify as Church of Scotland even though only about 10% are actually members. |
This is just one example of what is meant by "culturally protestant". This would indicate that nearly one third of the entire population of Scotland are folk who are NOT members of the Church of Scotland, but still identify with the Kirk. And yet even the figure of 42.4% seriously underestimates the percentage of the population of Scotland who are "culturally protestant". Are members of the Free Kirk protestant? They are not included in that figure. Are members of the United Reformed Church protestant? They are not included in that figure. Are members of the United Free Church of Scotland protestant? They are not included in that figure. Are members of the Free Presbyterians protestant? They are not included in that figure. Are members of the Associated Presbyterians protestant? They are not included in that figure. Are members of the various Baptist churches protestant? Baptists are not included in that figure. There are probably a dozen other small protestant churches which I haven't mentioned. Okay, so all of the churches I've mentioned are minorities, but added together they make the difference between 42.4% and a majority of the population. Here's a few more to add in. I know a member of the Orange Lodge who is also a member of the Methodist Church. Are Methodists protestant? They are not included in that figure. Come to think of it, the Orange Lodge began as an exclusively Episcopalian organisation - other types of protestants were not welcome. Episcopalians are, of course, not included amongst the 42.4% of the population of Scotland who identify with the Church of Scotland. Plus, of course, not included amongst that 42.4% are many agnostics and atheists who meet my definition of "culturally protestant" - folk who think that the Reformation was an improvement on what existed before.
We have a referendum on independence coming up next year. While I'm sure we can win that referendum for independence, it's certainly not going to be a walkover. Some folk are committed supporters of independence, some folk are committed opponents of independence, but a large slice of the population are capable of being persuaded either way, and a lot depends on how we approach them. Now, the Unionists will use every trick in the book, and it is worth bearing in mind that SOME supporters of independence for Scotland, a minority, certainly, but "some", can occasionally sound either like IRISH nationalists, or like Jacobites, or like folk who want to go back to the Middle Ages. So I think it's worth reminding folk which country they are in, and what the historical background of that country is, and the composition of the present day population of that country. Like, for instance, try to bear in mind that the majority are culturally protestant.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Rinty wrote: | | there will be many celebrations next year as part of the 450th anniversary of the reformation. It is one of THE most important events in european history and Scotland was at the centre of it. |
There is a thread on "Reformation Anniversary News" in the "Scottish News, Life, and Society" section. Under that heading, twelve days ago, I gave my view on this. | Quote: | Specifically on the current political controversy regarding marking the anniversary, I have mixed feelings. Yes OF COURSE if it was the 500th anniversary, there would be absolutely no question this had to be treated as a major landmark. But the 450th? Aye, maybe.
Marking significant anniversaries can be a good thing, if it gets more folk genuinely interested in, and discussing about, our history, and what things we can learn from our history that might have some relevance to making us who we are today. But the emphasis should be on HISTORY , and not "Heritage", because heritage is so often a distortion of history. The yearly parades held in the more backward parts of Scotland to mark the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne are one example (there are plenty of others) of the distorting effect of "Heritage". Both the Orangemen and the Celtic-scarf-wavers who protest against them are remarkably ignorant of the real history of that period. If there is to be public marking of the 450th anniversary of the Reformation in Scotland, then this should take the form of examining and debating what actually happened and why it is significant. Tom Devine has acted as a true historian in making a useful initial contribution to that public examining of what happened and its significance. |
|
Dave Coull
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | For all the good that came out of the Scottish Reformation, there was also a lot of bad. |
Yes, a lot of bad came from the Reformation. But in some ways it could be argued that the good outweighed the bad. One thing that came out of the Reformation in Scotland was that the barbaric practice of burning heretics alive ended, at least in Scotland. | Aventinian wrote: | | The looming corpse of St Andrews Cathedral should be enough to remind people of that. |
It's a building. Bricks and mortar. Inanimate objects. As another kind of reminder, consider some of the events at Saint Andrews Cathedral leading up to the Reformation. In February 1527, on the orders of the Archbishop of Saint Andrews, young Patrick Hamilton was burnt at the stake outside Saint Andrews Cathedral as a protestant heretic. In 1533, on the orders of the Archbishop of Saint Andrews, Henry Forest was burned alive outside the Cathedral as a protestant heretic. It being a clear day, Henry was burned at the stake on the north side of the Cathedral, so that folk in Angus, at the other side of the Tay estuary, would be able to see the smoke and flames as a deadly warning to them. In March 1546, on the orders of the Archbishop of Saint Andrews, George Wishart was burned alive as a protestant heretic outside Saint Andrews Cathedral. (When Wishart had been arrested, he'd had to restrain his bodyguard, a man called John Knox, from drawing his sword in his defense.) In April 1558, just two years before the triumph of the Reformation, on the orders of the Archbishop of Saint Andrews, Walter Myln was burned to death as a protestant heretic outside Saint Andrews Cathedral All of these examples of people being publicly tortured to death at Saint Andrews Cathedral were on the orders of the Archbishop of Saint Andrews.
Like I said, marking significant anniversaries can be a good thing, provided it gets more folk genuinely interested in, and discussing about, our history, and what things we can learn from our history that have made us who we are today. But the emphasis should be on HISTORY - not "Heritage".
|
Rinty
|
I think the good outweighed the bad by quite a significant margin.
|
mac
|
Enjoying this thread, the good CONTINUES to outweigh the bad, and I really like this observation:
"The yearly parades held in the more backward parts of Scotland"
Love it 
|
|
|
|