Field Marshall Haig - a man with honour in his own time

Alan Massie is correct in his column (8 January) to remind your correspondent Alan Hinnrichs who offered such a damning indictment (6 January) of Field Marshall Haig, the commander of UK forces on the Western Front in France and Flanders for much of the First World War, that he was widely respected in his own time for his leadership role in the catastrophic battles and eventual victory - a victory that probably had to do not only with German exhaustion but also the imminent arrival in battle of tens of thousands of fresh American troops. 

The Edinburgh born General, commemorated with a plaque in Charlotte Square, was the heir of the wealthy whisky producing family and was made an Earl after the war in recognition of his roles.He was granted the freedom of both the City of Edinburgh and the City of Glasgow in the Peace Celebrations of July 1919, following the conclusion of peace treaties at Versailles.

In 1924 the Glasgow Herald reported that 'there is unbounded satisfaction that the honour of unveiling Glasgow's war memorial will fall to Earl Haig. Since the Field Marshall has returned from France he has not spared himself on behalf of the men who served in His Majesty's forces'. George Square was filled by countless thousands on that day, 31 May 1924, as they listened to the commemoration and then filed for hours past the Cenotaph and Stone of Remembrance in front of City Chambers. 

20,000 Glaswegians were estimated, by the then Lord Provost, to have died in that war

And it was the support of Haig that led to Edinburgh's  war memorial, the Stone of Remembrance in front of its City Chambers, finally being constructed and dedicated some three years later, a year before he died.

Letter in the Scotsman 9 January 2013

Church of Scotland minister expelled as chaplain from Glasgow school; council education chiefs and school heads act as religious functionaries and censors

The expulsion of a Church of Scotland minister as the chaplain at a Glasgow Council Gaelic School for expressing his religious and political views, following upon the recent expulsion of a Christian  evangelical chaplain at another Scottish school, raises profound issues about the access of religious groups to pupils in our state schools.

Local authorities and school head teachers are, in fact, acting as censors and religious functionaries in determining which religious organisations will be allowed into our schools and which religious views will be allowed to be expressed to pupils.

Is it not time to end religious observance in schools?

END, NOT AMEND, SCOTS SCHOOL PRAYERS

For more on the latest expulsion of a school chaplain visit http://bit.ly/1cVjsF6

Who are the nones? People with no religion tend to be pretty average folk

I recently examined data about the characteristics of people with no religion compared to those who have religions of various types.

There is need to do this because official studies frequently focus more on the different religious denominations rather than thinking systematically about the growing proportion of the population that has no religion - 37 per cent in the 2011 Scottish census. For instance, the informative source I consulted (see below) summarises its findings for well known religious groups but not for those with no religion. So here I offer a quick summary.

Those who report to surveys and censuses that they have no religion tend to be not that much different from the average citizen,

They have about average employment rates and are spread around a typical selection of occupations.

They have less wealth than average but this may be because they tend to be younger. They live across all types of neighbourhoods in the same way as the general population.

Slightly healthier and slightly more inclined to drink

Some statistically significant but small differences emerge with respect to health. The non-religious are slightly less likely than average to be obese, to have cardio-vascular disease or diabetes and are more likely to meet the daily recommended levels of exercise.

However, like Roman Catholics, 28 per cent of them smoked, compared to the national average of 25.

The non-religious are also more likely to exceed daily recommended alcoholic intake limits at 41 per cent compared to the national Scottish average of 39.

One thing the biggest differences that mark out the non-religious is that they are much more likely to go to the cinema. 60% of them do compared to 54% overall and 44% for Church of Scotland adherents.

For more information visit http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00420970.pdf
The summary of the report is available at p37-8 with no mention of the near 40% with no religion.

Religion and the Scottish independence referendum

Abstract of article in the December 2013 issue of the

Political Quarterly

The Scottish independence referendum debate, like the Act of Union of 1707, has significant religious dimensions. The Act gave special recognition through the monarch to the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The Church, a national church, has not yet declared a position on independence, but is seeking to protect its existing privileges, whatever the result. The Roman Catholic Church, recognised by the Scottish Parliament, unlike its formal rejection by the UK Parliament and monarchy, symbolically associates itself with the case for independence. Paradoxically, Scottish Catholics supporting independence subject themselves, in their religious lives, to an authoritarian foreign power. The SNP Scottish Government attempts to draw Roman Catholic support for independence from its traditional support base in the Labour Party of the central belt by cultivating a sense of religious grievance that is not justified by the evidence. Old religious divisions are still relevant but non-religion is growing fast and resulting in new perspectives on the independence debate.

Full version available at

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2013.12051.x/abstract 

New book - essential reading on the monarchy in constitutional and religious debates

Can the Christian and Protestant monarchy of the UK and 15 other realms endure in the increasingly secular and religiously diverse societies of the twenty-first century?

The monarch has to be a Protestant and swear to reject Roman Catholicism but in Canada Catholics are now 40 per cent of the population and outnumber Protestants by almost two to one. Will this situation endure?

The monarch swears to uphold 'the True Protestant Religion and the Presbyterian form of church government in Scotland' but Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist prayers are now heard in the monarch's Scottish Parliament.

If Scotland becomes independent it will be the 17th state with the monarch as head of state like Australia and Papua New Guinea but could it hold its own individual national coronation for a new monarch?

Can Prince Charles, as likely next monarch, be 'Defender of Faith?'

Explore these and related questions in Monarchy, religion and the state

More details at http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/cgi-bin/indexer?product=9780719089879

Publishers UK- Manchester University Press; USA - Palgrave Macmillan; Canada - University of British Columbia Press; Australia; Footprint.

For more on the author's work visit http://www.normanbonneypublications.blogspot.co.uk

A secular response to the Scottish Government's Independence White Paper: Remove the religious aspects of the monarchy.

The Scottish Government White Paper arguing for a 'yes' vote in the independence referendum on 14 September 2014 does little to advance the cause of secularism.

The proposed continuance of the UK monarchy means that the head of state of an independent Scotland would be a Christian and Protestant monarch confirmed in office by religious rituals.The Scottish Government does not plan to change the rules of succession. Roman Catholics and others not in communion with the Church of England would continue to be excluded from succession to the throne (Answer to Question 581).

However this statement is in conflict with a the summary of the White Paper in the section headed 'The monarchy and the crown', which states that an independent Scottish Government would promote and support, among the states of the Commonwealth that have the monarch as head of state, a measure to exclude religious discrimination from the succession rules.(Such a change would have to be agreed by all 16 other relevant states).

In answer to Question 590 the Scottish Government says that it proposes no change to the legal status of any religion or of Scotland's churches.(This would presumably mean that churches would retain their allocated places on local authority education committees).But the answer conflicts with the White Paper statement that the Acts of Union would be repealed as part of the transition to independence. This would remove the obligation on a new monarch immediately on coming to the throne to take the oath to  'maintain and preserve the True Protestant Religion and the Presbyterian form of church government in Scotland'.

The repeal of the Acts of Union would thus remove the special position of the Church of Scotland but the current monarch could not assent to this change because of the oath sworn upon accession on 8 February 1952 (although this oath could be overridden by UK Parliamentary legislation). No wonder the Moderator of the Church of Scotland met with UK Scotland Office ministers shortly after the White Paper was published since the historic position of the Church is in jeopardy if Scotland becomes independent.

There is very little to advance the cause of secularism in the White Paper proposals. The monarch's institutional favouritism towards the Church of Scotland is threatened and there are possible steps that would remove the discriminatory rules of succession to the throne but the Scottish Government emphasises, somewhat mistakenly, that there will be no change to the legal status of any religion or Scotland's churches.

Some secularists argue that their agenda can be pursued at the proposed constitutional convention that will be established after the achievement of independence in order to design a new constitution for the new Scottish state but if it cannot be achieved within the context of current constitutional arrangements or in the proposals for independence why should it be expected under that scenario? And what confidence can people have in voting for independence if the proposed initial arrangements for independence can so readily be overturned?

The most effective steps that secularists might take are to press for the removal of all religious tests for the monarchy and the removal of  all its religious roles. The secular monarchy should be campaigned for as part the independence package or as part of the continuing United Kingdom whether or not Scotland achieves independence.

Please send any comments on this post to normanbonney2010@gmail.com 

Over 1500 petitioners kept waiting by Education Secretary Mike Russell

Over 1500 petitioners to the Scottish Parliament who are wanting to change the way prayers are conducted in Scottish schools will have to wait until next year to hear the views of Cabinet Education Secretary Mike Russell.

The petition was lodged on 20 June 2013. On 12 November the Public Petitions Committee agreed to obtain the views of Scottish Government on the public comments that had been received on the petition. The Minister's response is not on the agenda of the Committee for the meeting of 10 December.

The 1500 petitioners and many others will be keen to hear the Scottish Government's views on submissions such some of the following;

• The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities which argues that current practices are insufficiently inclusive
• The Scottish Parent Teacher Council which urges an end to compulsory school prayers
• The Scottish Secular Society which documents extensive inadequacies in current opt-out provision 
• Dundee and Tayside Humanists who argue current practices breach the UN Convention on the rights of children
• Edinburgh Secular Society which argues for the ending of prayers in schools