Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Anger at Labour stance on Catholic ban

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 January 2009
By Scott Macnab
NATIONALISTS have hit out at Labour after official papers revealed former first minister Donald Dewar believed the Act of Settlement had no place in modern society.
The act bans Catholics from becoming monarch and was the centre of fresh Liberal Democrat moves for a repeal at Westminster last week.

Documents obtained under freedom of information by SNP MSP Christine Grahame show Dewar, the inaugural first minister, acknowledged it was "no longer acceptable".

But his 1999 memo says any repeal would be a "long, drawn-out process" and claimed a silent majority found the debate "irrelevant".

Grahame said: "That is an utterly indefensible position."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 January 2009 7:17 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Scottish Labour Party
 
1

Wardog™,

25/01/2009 00:26:28


That Labour have taken over 12 years to do anything on this is a disgrace and represents the real nature of Labour's promises.

Bwoken
2

danbob,

25/01/2009 00:33:42
Just ban the royals. problem solved.
3

,

25/01/2009 00:53:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Observer,,

Glasgow 25/01/2009 01:00:01
2 Yes I agree with you, a secular republic would be my preferred option, but this has been kicking about for years and as yet no-one has done anything. It really is an affront to, not only Catholics, but any person who is not of the established faith. It's an anachronism which should be disposed of now.
5

donald,

glasgow 25/01/2009 05:31:34
It makes no difference whether the English Jelly Bean is a Pape, Prod, Bhuddha, Jew, Muslim, etc. It is as beyond the wit of Labour MPs to abolish the Monarchy as it would be to implement socialism.

Roll on the Scottish Socialist Republic
6

Robert Mason,

Larkhall 25/01/2009 08:22:27
What is the SNP's position on this?
7

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 25/01/2009 08:45:37
Well here we go again - its the LibDems who are left to pick up the pieces in another case of absolute injustice that the country still perpetrates on a huge chunk of its citizenship.

Come on brothers and sisters, join the sensible revolution.
8

John S,

25/01/2009 09:08:19
The Act of Settlement, which states that anyone who "shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist" cannot be monarch.
As a practicing Catholic I am classified according to the Act of Settlement, as a someone who professes a popish religion and am I also a papist, I find these words offensive.
Also offensive is that the act does not ban the monarch from marrying anyone of any other religion or indeed someone of no faith at all so if Prince William wants to marry a Catholic, he can't, but he can marry a Scientologist or a Holocaust denier, an Atheist etc anyone but a "Pap..". off course this will never happen in practice but it is still irritating to feel a sense of discrimination 300 years later, this also trickles down to fuel any sectarian divide.
9

Stan Butler,

25/01/2009 09:38:25

The issue is irrelevant.

A Catholic can't marry the heir to the throne. Woopy Do.

That's the only restriction. Forget all the ignorant nonsense about a Catholic can't be PM or Chancellor of the Exchequer or whatever, the only prohibition is against marrying the heir to the throne.

Remember that the heir to the throne is destined to be the leader of the C of E and that it used to be, might still be, a condition of a Catholic marrying a non Catholic that both parties agreed that any children be brought up as Catholics then I can see that it is unlikely that any Catholic would find themselves in a position where the Act of Settlement had any impact on their life.

It would be more appropriate to either abolish the monarchy or disestablish the C of E than to twiddle and fiddle with the Act of Settlement.

10

,

25/01/2009 09:41:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

tartan army 2222,

25/01/2009 09:43:57
6 Robert Mason

The SNP have been quite clear that they want the Act repealed.

That it wasn't repealed years ago says a great deal about the big two London parties.
12

tartan army 2222,

25/01/2009 09:46:40
9 Stan Butler

Are you a Labour MP by any chance?
13

Stan Butler,

25/01/2009 09:49:08
#4observer. In a world where a child starves to death every three seconds any Catholic who is concerned enough about the Act of Settlement to consider it an affront has a distorted sense of priorities. There's more pressing and important matters to be affronted by.
14

karin.m,

25/01/2009 10:26:21
13 what do the catholics in the royal family think about it?

are they giving their money away to help these starving children like catholics do every week.

oh wait thats right there arent any in buck house.
15

John S,

25/01/2009 10:31:34
#13 Stan Butler - I take it you are not Pape ? As a Catholic or is that a Pape ? I prefer that I am a Catholic, I find the Act of Settlement offensive 300 years after it was signed. The Act only discriminates against that popish religion and those papists and this is the year 2009 ? I do believe this Act contributes towards a sectarian divide.
16

radge dug,

25/01/2009 10:41:46
The number of 'Old' Labour coucillours and memebers involved in the Orange Order is appalling.

Equally though, if a Muslim or Protestant can't become Pope, why should the RC be bothered about one of their own becoming 'defender' of the anglican faith?

Better still, abolish the Royal Family and keep religion out of public life.
17

Thommo,

Glasgow 25/01/2009 10:45:53
The monarch must be "in communion with the Church of England" as he or she is titular head of that church. This excludes all kinds of people: Baptists, Methodists, Sikhs, atheists....

Dewar made some good points: no matter how archaic these laws may be they have no real relevance to ordinary people's lives and getting rid of them would be an arduous process, including an Act of Parliament or the equivalent in every Commonwealth country in which The Queen is head of state.
18

Observer,,

Glasgow 25/01/2009 10:54:02
13 You are conflating two separate issues. I agree compared to children dying it is an irrelevance, but on it's own it's an issue that needs to be dealt with.
19

Stan Butler,

25/01/2009 10:58:22

#15 John S

So which member of the royal family has the Act of Settlement prevented you from marrying?

Don't worry, plenty more fish in the sea.

And yes, 300 years ago words like Popish and Papist were commonplace.

Language changes, get over it.
20

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 25/01/2009 11:47:00
Members of the Roman Catholic faith are not the only
adherents prevented from becoming King or Queen of England?

Members of the Buddhist teachings, and those of the Hindu, Jewish and Islamic faiths are also excluded, along with every other Christian faith.

No Baptist, Congregationalist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or member of any other Protestant sect can marry a member of the Royal Family, unless of course, they convert to the Anglican Faith.

However, any member of an Episcopalian Church, in communion with the Church of England, is qualified.
This includes a member of the Church of Ireland, the Anglican Church in All Ireland.

The anomaly exists where a citizen of the Republic
of Ireland, who is also a member of the Church of Ireland, could in effect marry into the Royal Family.
21

,

25/01/2009 13:05:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

,

25/01/2009 13:08:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

,

25/01/2009 13:14:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

,

25/01/2009 13:20:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

,

25/01/2009 13:22:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

,

25/01/2009 13:30:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

,

25/01/2009 13:41:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

Observer,,

Glasgow 25/01/2009 14:44:39
22 when the Act was written we didn't have the multi cultural society we do now. Apart from a handful of Jews who would obviously never be allowed into the Royal family everyone professed to be Christian. The Act was designed to specifically outlaw Catholic ascension or influece on the throne, but it has also ensured that no muslim, buddhist, or hindu could either. It discriminates against anyone who is not of the established faith indiscriminately.
29

Observer,,

Glasgow 25/01/2009 14:47:02
And of course the Colonel is right, it discrimunates against atheists and agnostics too.
30

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 25/01/2009 14:57:48
The act of settlement can only be abolished when the church of England is disestablished. The latter will not happen becuase it would mean that the Church would lose its seats in the lords and become, just another faith.

On a historical note, it is worth looking at the circumstances of the time when the act was drawn up. Times have changed and it would be nice to think religion does not matter - however, I note that in Scotland it still does.
31

Alba Abú,

25/01/2009 15:08:03
In 1999 the Scottish parliament debated this issue.The vast majority of the members of our parliament voted for its abolition. A delegation was sent to Downing street to put their findings to Blair.The Prime minister of England sympathised but said that it would take much legislation to have this sectarian act removed,in fact I think that the number was 8 amendments.It is worthy of note that it took 33 amendments to set up the Scottish parliament.Blair and his socialist Labour party then wrung their hands and emulated Pontius Pilate. The Prime Minister then sneaked off and became a Catholic,he did not have the courage to do this whilst in office,due to the sectarian nature of the British state.So,there we have it.England now "stands alone" in her bigotry.Blair was afraid to take on the bigotted British establishment and did a runner.
32

Alba Abú,

25/01/2009 15:10:57
#34 Good point! Simple solution there is, separate church and state.
33

radge dug,

25/01/2009 15:44:25
Maybe the Hunnz at Ibrox should be told that their beloved Royal Family also excludes Scots' Presbyterians?
34

radge dug,

25/01/2009 15:45:02
There may be no Catholics in the RF, but sexual deviants abound!
35

Stan Butler,

25/01/2009 16:36:03
So the heir to the throne marries a Catholic.

Are the children to be brought up to be Catholics?

36

,

25/01/2009 18:41:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 25/01/2009 20:38:05
Just leave it as it is . it does no one any harm.better to put our efforts into getting ridof these theiving ,lying politicians who control our very existance
38

Stan Butler,

25/01/2009 21:22:55
#41 Ribbonman. I'm not sure you are correct. I think that a catholic marrying a non Catholic is expected as far as possible, to see to it that the children be baptised and brought up as Catholics. So you then have the prospect of a Catholic heir to the throne and leader of the C of E. That's not going to work, is it?

Even if you are right, what you are saying is that you want a Catholic to be able to marry the heir to the throne, but with the proviso that any children are to be members of the C of E. How is that any better than the status quo?
39

Eve,

Scotland 25/01/2009 22:03:48
This artcle is confuseing. Where as I don't belive that such an act should exist. I am baffled by this arcle which appears incomplet.

Donald has been dead a long time now, where it's fasenting that he had such opions and did openly sare them. There is nothing that he can do now as he is part of the past. And as book cover wance read says "Your past dosenae have a future you do!"
40

Eve,

Scotland 25/01/2009 22:09:19
#43 Stan Butler: Not nesarrly. It go either way or niether.

In fact I believe it's possibley more likely to be niether than one or the other.

Your just probly more likely hear someone who is Cathloic to adimit that their parents don't share the same religous domain.

41

Brian Hill,

25/01/2009 23:48:50
I too would prefer a Republic, however while Kings and Queens exist, on a matter of principal, there can be no discrimination in the 21st century.

Since 1979 both the Tories and London Labour have had big enough majorities to easily repeal The Act of Settlement. Neither have.

That says it all.

42

watcher,

Edinburgh 26/01/2009 09:37:31
Why would the Nats bother about this? Are we to have a Scottish King when the independance comes, maybe kind Alex of Linlithgow.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.