The lantern-jawed Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy has come a long way from when, as a young child, he used to sleep in the bottom drawer of his grandmother's bedroom dresser in a Glasgow tenement. He now proudly sits in slightly more auspicious surroundings: around the cabinet table of the UK Government.
From the Georgian splendour of Dover House, the architectural jewel in Whitehall that is home to the Scotland Office, the 41-year-old son of a pipe-fitter is just two months into his new role and, by all accounts, enjoying it.
...but the rest of the article is still worth pursuing with, for this little piece of information slipped in at the end:
In his interview, Mr Murphy recalled how, when he was Europe Minister, he visited Sarajevo, where he met the three-person rotating presidency - a Bosnian, a Serb and a Croat. He was told that a Jew could not be president unless he or she designated themselves as part of one of the three other ethnic groups.
"In the same way that's wrong, the settlement we have in the United Kingdom is unfair. I would like to see it changed. It's not because I'm a Catholic that I feel it. It's unfair, wrong, discriminatory and does not fit well into a modern sense of what Britain is about," he added.
The settlement he’s talking about is, of course, The Act of Settlement which I’ve previously blogged my opinion on here. As Murphy relates, there is nothing likely to be achieved in the lifetime of this parliament, but as the wheels have now been put in motion, it’s likely the next government will have to make some kind of decision in the matter...but I’m wondering if the timing of this “news” is a mere coincidence? I’m not going to expand on my theory at the minute, just to see if anyone else is thinking along the same lines on this as myself.
Update:
Rather than do another individual post on the subject, I've put my theory up in the comments following.
20 comments:
I agree entirely. It's an anachronistic and iniquitous piece of legislation which, whatever the technical difficulties involved, must now be repealed.
There is also a pressing imperative to undermine what in this instance is legitimate criticism of the British constitution. As Rabbie Burns said: “Be Britain still to Britain true, Amang ourselves united; For never but by British hands. Maun British wrangs be righted!”
I am not sure whether Burns would have been so keen on Britain having a hand in righting French wrongs by reimposing the House of Bourbon in 1814 and 1815 - since he was sympathetic to the Revolution.
The question of religion and monarchy is a strange one. In Denmark the monarch has to be a Lutheran as he/she is head of the Church of Denmark. Ditto the same situation in Norway.
I believe the Crown Princess, Scottish-Australian, had to take instruction and be confirmed into the Lutheran Church four or five years ago before she married.
The Dutch do not specify that their monarch has to be a Protestant but it is a convention that it is so and that they be members of the state Dutch Reformed Church. This is enforced by the fact that all royal marraiges need to be supported by a vote of Parliament to be recognised by the Dutch state. That is why two of Queen Beatrix's three sisters renounced their claims to the throne when they married Catholics. Her nearest sister also caused a scandal by converting to Catholicism in the 1960's.
More scandously in some South American Republics, non-Catholics were/are barred from running for President. The most noted victim of this was Argentina's Carlos Menhem who was born a Muslim (his ancestry is Syrian) but had to become a Catholic so to climb up the greasy pole.
Strangely a model of tolerance existed in Saxony. The Saxon monarchy were initially champions of Protestantism and indeed protected Luther. However the monarchy to get their hands on Poland converted to Catholicism in the 1700s and remained so until their deposition in 1918.
Augustus the Strong, who was the convert, constructed to cathedrals. One to his new faith, Hofkirche (Royal Church) and one for the Lutheran faith practiced by the majority of Saxony - the famed Fraukirche. Not many people here would expect such enlightenment in Germany.
Speaking as a Yorkshireman I should point out that would be "Och Aye the Noo" not "Eee ba gum".
And speaking as an Englishman I find it extremely offensive that a Scottish Catholic should presume to tell me who should be the head of the Church of England. When a Roman Catholic agrees to let a Hindu become Pope I might reconsider. But until then this is offensive, bigoted and unwarranted interference in somebody else's religion.
I wonder how Nizari Moslems would react to being told that they had to accept a Jew as the next Aga Khan?
Wildgoose
Jim Murphy is a UK Cabinet Minister. His religious affiliation and the fact that he is Scottish are of no greater relevance in respect of this issue than his skin colour or inside leg measurement!
The disestablishment of the Church of England would presumably be a consequence of repealing the Act of Settlement. Another long overdue constitutional reform.
If the English Constitutional Settlement is of so little import despite the Civil Wars we fought to achieve it, then the same should apply to Scotland's insistence on a separate legal system.
You claim to be a "Unionist". Follow through with your own logic then. If we are all to be treated identically then that means as ONE people under ONE legal system and ONE Parliament.
I believe you agree with the argument with regards to Westminster. Are you going to do the same with regards your precious separate legal system? Or is it only ever England that has to submit to having its character altered and its history overridden?
Wildgoose
Your basic identity politics, that the English are "we" and everyone else in Britain is "they", means that we'll never see eye-to-eye on these issues.
Your "logic" starts from a false premise in respect of my view of things and then involves several non sequiturs.
Notably, devolution of certain powers to the smaller nations, to England or even to suitably sized "regions" of the nation of England means that decisions can be taken which are more attuned to local circumstances. One-size-fits-all simply isn't the best model of government.
Fascinating. "One-size-fits-all" isn't the best model of government. And this from a "Unionist" that believes in a single "one-size-fits-all" UK Parliament for the whole of the UK.
Or, are you suddenly a convert to the devolved Scottish Parliament? Quite frankly, you seem a little confused.
As for the identity politics, mea culpa.
In 1997 I was British and never called myself English. Now I'm English and never call myself British. Why should I? To be English under the British State means that I am a second-class tax serf with fewer political rights than the inhabitants of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
By overwhelmingly voting for Devolution Scotland declared that it was Other and that it rejected any English involvement with how it ran its own affairs. Fair enough, that is Scotland's right.
But having denied English involvement in the governance of Scotland by what right do Scots insist on interfering in English affairs? This is just rank hypocrisy.
The English didn't start this. Unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland we have never been given a vote on what we want. And when we simply ask for the same consideration to be afforded us we are abused.
The biggest threat to the continuation of the Union are "Unionists" such as yourself who believe that it can only survive by suppressing England and the English. Not those like myself who believe that if the Union is to continue then it is only on the basis of equality for all its citizens, each standing in exactly the same position to the Union as all others.
The confusion is all yours. I welcomed devolution, and despite the can of worms it has undoubtedly opened, continue to support the decentralist potential which it represents. Clearly you disagree.
Perhaps if you had been more comfortable with a multi-layered English and British identity you wouldn't have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in terms of your sense of identity. By restricting yourself to one or the other you're missing out on a great deal of richness and colour.
Would it surprise you to learn that I understand and broadly agree with your points about the asymmetrical nature of the current devolution arrangement? I can't identify with the nationalistic way in which you express your resentment, but although I can see both sides of the argument I can certainly appreciate the case for an English devolved parliament. So whoever has "abused" you over this issue or whom you imagine to want to "suppress" English, it isn't me!
O'Neill,
Is your theory anything to do with the Conservative/UUP link-up?
Tom,
Yes. I’m maybe crediting Scottish labour with too much subtledy on this one- however, it’s strange in the last two days we’ve had Murphy’s interview, Reid saying the the abolishment of the Act should be included in Labour’s next manifesto and a Labour MSP, Pauline McNeill pledging to introduce a debate on the matter in the Scottish parliament. Why no, when as Murphy “admits” nothing can be done before the next general election, although Jack Straw is apparently "working hard" on the subject?
The Tory/UUP link up will have more potential ramifications in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK; this is the Conservatives saying they, not Labour are the true party of the Union- unlike Labour, we are fighting every seat. Secondly, and I hesitate to introduce religion into the equation* because I’m not really sure how important it still is in Scottish politics; however, the Tories linking up with a Unionist party in NI will do them no harm at all with an element of the protestant working-class in certain areas of Glasgow, Edinburgh and the West Coast- I’m not saying this is in any way behind Cameron’s decision, but any drift away at all from labour support in these constituencies could well gift the SNP in winning the seats.
So, although we are still a while off the general election, let’s shine the spotlight on the Tories’ new relationship, put them on the spot. How will the UUP collectively deal with the threat of the repeal of the Act, how would their reaction reflect on the Conservatives’ reputation in Scotland? A little bit of tension between the two parties also wouldn’t do Labour any harm at all.
As I say, I’m maybe crediting them with too much subtlety on this one, but it does seem a bit of coincidence all this appearing now.
*It’s interesting in all three cases I mention, the Catholicism of the MPs and MSP is given prominent place, why? Was that Labour’s intention? Would it not have had more impact if a non RC MP had made the same kind of comments?
"Why no, when"
should read "Why now".
"Why no, when"
should read "Why now".
To be honest there is already an Orange party in Scotland. It is the Scottish Unionist Party standing on the platform of abolishing Holyrood and Catholic schools.
The Orange vote seems to split across Labour, Tories and SNP in Scotland. Billy Woolfe in the early 80's made Orange remarks and of course the SNP made an alliance with the Orange Order in the late 1940's to persecute Polish servicemen who stayed in Scotland after the war.
(Not that Labour can be smug - Kier Hardie used to persecute Lithuanaian miners in the early part of the 20th century for "stealing jobs").
I think it is more to put a wedge if anything between Tory and UUP factions. However it is pointless since the UUP might sit with the Tories in government without a formal alliance.
James Kilfedder sat with the Tories even though he never officially linked his "Ulster Popular Unionist Party" - so popular it died with him. I remember Major calling him in the Commons his "right honourable friend" - Kilfedder was a member of the NI Privy Council.
I believe that the SDLP sits on the government benches at the moment even though there is no formal agreement with Labour and the SDLP. I fact as a unionist I thought you might give a (half - considering their politics) cheer to.
>>Your basic identity politics, that the English are "we" and everyone else in Britain is "they", means that we'll never see eye-to-eye on these issues.<<
And yet you are still a unionist despite these prevailing English idea's of Britishness. For shame!
Great strategy O'neil, hope that all the unreconstructed bigots and other assorted OO knuckle draggers vote for the Tories in Scotland. Now haven't I been calling for this clear demarcation for as long.
In the words of the great Wendy-hoose;
"Bring it oan!"
Prevailing English ideas?
No Tony! You may think so little of English people that you imagine anti-Scottish nationalism to be their "prevailing" sentiment, but I don't.
Tell me: is your low opinion of English people part of the reason you're a ScotNat?
Great strategy O'neil, hope that all the unreconstructed bigots and other assorted OO knuckle draggers vote for the Tories in Scotland.
It's more Labour interpretating this is the Tories' strategy.
SU
>>Tell me: is your low opinion of English people part of the reason you're a ScotNat?<<
Why should you think that because I believe this to be their prevailing opinion, that I have a low opinion of them man? It is a general fact that Englishness is thought of as Britishness by virtually all outside and inside these islands. Jeezo did you not notice the recent furore over Andy Murray was at the heart of this. The questioned how can he be British and NOT support England?
Oh and aren't you worth a watching eh, cunningly trying to expose my alleged hatred of English people as the base of my patriotism. Is your slavish devotion to a foreign nation based on the belief that my/our people are somehow not worthy of controlling our own destiny?
Gie's peace! And just for the record, I'd be hard pushed to think of an Englishman I have met and not liked. The buggers are generally quite affable.
O'Neill
I have long noted that the Tories campaign as the Conservatives, yet in certain parts of west central Scotland as the Conservative and Unionist party. A direct attempt(partially successful as I know of at least two Orangies who vote for them) to obtain the votes of Orange bigots.
What?!
So you think that the "prevailing opinion" of English people is that England *is* Britain. But you don't have a low opinion of such a bizarre view. Hmm. Can't agree with you there.
My "slavish devotion to a foreign nation"?! Now you've lost me. Which "foreign nation"?
And I've rarely met a ScotNat who hasn't been keen to let it be known how some of his best friends are English, but research conducted in 2006 by Glasgow University’s Bill Miller and Asifa Hussain found that 46% of Scottish Nationalists harbour anti-English feeling. Obviously the more reclusive 46%.
Your "not worthy" question is not worthy of an answer.
A direct attempt(partially successful as I know of at least two Orangies who vote for them) to obtain the votes of Orange bigots.
It isn't going to win them seats though and as Aberdonian points out, there is an alternative "Unionist" party which would more directly suit their...religious identity, shall we say.
SU
In what context do they harbour anti-English feeling? I suppose I could be accused of it for not wanting the buggers to control my country and her resources.
>>And I've rarely met a ScotNat who hasn't been keen to let it be known how some of his best friends are English<<
Which do you prefer? Bite me or away'n'chase yirsel?
>>Your "not worthy" question is not worthy of an answer.<<
Hmmmm. I don't see any reason why we cannot maintain a close friendship with our near neighbours on an equal basis. Why else would you not want this?
O'neil
A Tory/UUP coalition would I imagine trump those clowns any day.
Post a Comment