Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 21st November 2009

'Covenanters spurned for Jacobites'

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: 08 November 2009
THE Covenanters are regarded by some as freedom fighters who bravely opposed attempts by the English crown to destroy Scottish religion, culture and identity.
But the Scottish Government and heritage groups have been accused of sidelining the 17th-century Protestant rebels for the more romantic Jacobites.

Historian Dane Love has launched a withering attack on "the Scottish establishment" for neglecting
memorials devoted to the National Covenant, signed by 300,000 Scots in the 17th century to defend Scotland's Protestant faith.

He has also called for a national monument to be created to the historic movement, which plunged Scotland into a bloody civil war after the Stuart monarchs tried to impose English religious practices.

Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobites – who tried to restore the Stuart monarchy a century later – are known worldwide, with their achievements and failures marked by national monuments at Culloden battlefield and Glenfinnan, where the Young Pretender raised his standard in 1745.

But no large-scale monuments exist for the Covenanters, despite their role in Scottish history being a major part of the nation's folklore, especially in the south-west of the country. Covenanter memorials and graves also receive no public money for their upkeep.

Love, who has just written the first encyclopaedia of the Covenanters , said: "The crucial role played by them in Scotland's past has not been recognised by the Scottish establishment. Their struggle to preserve religious freedom – often resulting in them being hunted down and killed by the King's soldiers – should be more widely known and commemorated by a national monument. The heroes of the Covenanting movement have not been given the recognition they deserve."

The job of preserving Covenanter graves, sites and monuments has been left to the Scottish Covenanter Memorials Association (SCMA), he added, which relies on private donations. In 2008, the SCMA spent more than £14,000 on restoring Covenanter graves and erecting new monuments, with nothing coming from government.

He said this stood in stark contrast to the public funds lavished on Jacobite monuments. He said: "Contrast this with Jacobite sites. Millions of pounds have been laid out for the new visitor centre at Culloden. The establishment in Scotland are reluctant to recognise the Covenanters. That is a disgrace and I think the SNP government of all people should recognise the Covenanters' role in keeping Scottish identity alive."

Love highlighted a number of key Covenanter sites that are either in disrepair or have been neglected by heritage groups.

One of the best-known Covenanter memorials is in Edinburgh's Grassmarket. Last year its decorative fencing was removed as part of a revamp. Recommendations by the SCMA to make it more prominent were largely ignored.

Love said: "We were consulted on the Grassmarket monument but none of our recommendations were taken on board." He claimed the organisation's efforts to rebuild the Covenanters monument in Edinburgh's Greyfriars Kirkyard, had been blocked.

"We have been trying to improve the monument, which is falling to bits in parts. We wanted to bring in a stonemason. But we have been blocked by red tape," he said.

Another key Covenanter site is the grave of the Wigtown Martyrs, executed in Dumfries and Galloway. Love said: "It is quite neglected. The 325th anniversary of the Wigtown Martyrs' deaths is approaching, but nothing is planned to mark it from any official source."

Other historians agree that modern Scotland has not been as keen to promote the Covenanters as it has the Jacobites.

Historian Professor Tom Devine said: "At the time of the last Jacobite rising, most people living in Scotland loathed them, fearing that if they won, we would return to a Catholic monarchy.

"The Glasgow Journal devoted a special edition to the defeat of the 'perfidious papists' after the battle of Culloden. However, within 150 years the myth of Bonnie Prince Charlie was created and we had a sentimental view of the Jacobites emerging. We then start to see the Jacobites inheriting an almost nationalist tradition."

The Covenanters did not have have that kind of appeal in modern Scottish thinking, Devine said. "In many ways, they are seen as a sort of Scottish Taleban, who would have turned Scotland into a theocracy not unlike modern Iran. In that respect, they do not receive the same 'good press' that the Jacobites do."

The SNP government denied Love's claim they were ignoring the Covenanters' contribution.

Culture minister Mike Russell, a descendant of Covenanters, said: "We value all of Scotland's rich and diverse history, including the important role of the Covenanting movement.The War Memorials Trust would consider any application that meets their criteria."

Persecuted for their beliefs

The Covenanters' name derives from the signing of the National Covenant in 1638, a petition to King Charles I arguing that the church in Scotland should be free from interference. Around 300,000 Scots signed up.

This led to many clashes between Covenanters and Crown forces, including the battles of Rullion Green (1666) and Drumclog (1679). From 1684-7 – the Killing Times – the persecution escalated. Ministers were driven from their parishes and Presbyterianism proscribed.

Wigton Martyr Margaret Wilson, 18, above, was arrested and tried when she refused to take an oath to the King. She was tied to a stake in the river Bladnoch in Galloway, where she drowned. Her death inspired a painting by Sir John Everett Millais.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 November 2009 9:31 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
 
1

Group Captain Lionel Mandrake,

07/11/2009 23:04:39
This illustrates how much of Scottish history is composed of conflicting myths.

Nats, of course, only like to emphasise one side of the mythology.

By all means give more weight to hitherto neglected sides of the story - but do it right.

For example, let's make it clear that many Protestant Scots supported the Union because it was obvious to them that there was a choice between that or domination by the France of Louis XIV.
2

BraveLungs,

08/11/2009 00:42:26
Obvious flaw here is that the Culloden visitor centre is not 'pro-jacobite', but simply serves to tell the history as accurately as possible.
3

Fifi la Bonbon,

08/11/2009 00:51:03
I think that it's true that the Covenanters are generally ignored, but I don't think it's so much that the Jacobites are seen as "romantic" but that the Covenanters are perceived as "protestant" and there is anxiety at reviving interest in that split, as opposed to one focused on royalty. Indeed I don't quite understand why protestant bigots haven't latched on to them more - I put that down to general ignorance on their part.

The gallant group-captain at #1 is right to say that the whole thing does illustrate the genuine complexity of Scottish history, though. If it is true, as others have said, that investment at places like Culloden is aimed at glorifying the Jacobites than that's all wrong - but I doubt if that really is true. My simplistic view is that the Jacobites were the wrong side and if they'd won Scotland would have suffered more. As has been said, though, it's not that simple. so we need to learn all about all the arguments so we can make up oue own minds. Suppressing knowledge and understanding of the Covenanters is wrong and it's time we put that right.
4

Handsome Scotsman,

08/11/2009 00:58:47
We should get a monument built somewhere for us cybernats.

Defenders of Scotland in defiance of the Unionist based Media.
5

BraveLungs,

08/11/2009 01:01:20
Let's be honest though-the covenanters are just a bit dull. The Jacobites didn't like the government and launched a full scale war against them.
The covenanter's response to their grievances was to organize a petition!

Not the stuff of hollywood, really, is it?
6

Fifi la Bonbon,

08/11/2009 01:02:48
All those people whose minds have been changed by reading cybernats spouting forth - that's surely all the monument they need?
7

BraveLungs,

08/11/2009 01:04:17
"Suppressing knowledge and understanding of the Covenanters is wrong and it's time we put that right. "

So, I take it by that that you'd be in favour of teaching more Scottish history in schools?
8

BraveLungs,

08/11/2009 01:15:47
"For example, let's make it clear that many Protestant Scots supported the Union because it was obvious to them that there was a choice between that or domination by the France of Louis XIV."

The argument that domination by England is better than domination by France, is still pretty weak, however.
And by the accounts that I've read, the majority of Scots (including protestants, presumably) were against the Act of Union in 1707.
9

walter,

08/11/2009 02:32:24
History will be used by those arguing for a cause, If however the facts do not match their cause they will twist them to do so.
They will however ignore events in history if those events do not fit into their view point and they cannot twist them to do so.
10

Sean K,

Elgin 08/11/2009 04:19:47
Sectarian bigotry of any kind is abhorrent. It is sad when it influences what parts of our heritage we protect and respect.

There were unpleasant and regrettable aspects to both Jacobism and the Covenanter movement. Both were hijacked to a degree by opportunists in that time, and are used as slad dressing on political agendas that have little relevance to either.

But in both the Jacobite and Covenanter movements there were thousands of honest, devout Scots who did what they could, - even sacrificed life and liberty for their country and their their faith. Let us give due respect to all.

Take as an example Robert Louis Stevensons's portrayal of both sides through the characters of Alan Breck and David Balfour in "Kidnapped".

11

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/11/2009 05:55:38
Oh dear I am going to have to resign my commission as a perceived ''cybernat'' (although to be fair I have never thought of myself as that).

I agree wholly with Smee and Fifi's take on this.

5 The Jacobites launched a war and lost it. Rather stupid really. The idea of petitions and claims of right and stuff like that is what will achieve independence (there I go again).
12

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/11/2009 06:04:54
What is really weird is that the Covernanters were essentially against the Crown and it's influence on the government of the Church, and yet we see their protestant heirs being associated with the Crown and republicanism being associated with Catholicism. Really, nothing could be further from the truth when viewed historically, but that is just another one of those things which makes the whole subject so fascinating if you view it from an objective basis.
13

Group Captain Lionel Mandrake,

08/11/2009 08:12:22
12

"What is really weird is that the Covernanters were essentially against the Crown and it's influence on the government of the Church"

Yes, and that's what is largely responsible for the modern political myth of "Scottish popular sovereignty".

A concept which originally only applied to Kirk matters, but which has been mythologised into something much broader.

Total cobblers, when you look at the facts.
14

Thrawn,

UK 08/11/2009 08:15:08
#12: Weren't the Covenanters opposed to the imposition of the Anglican form of worship, which Charles I, born in Dunfermline but a devout Anglican, wished to impose on Scotland?

As I recall, when the whole of Ireland was under British (essentially English) control, the Church of Ireland, which is an Anglican church, was the main religion of the rulers and Presbyterians (i.e. not just Roman Catholics) were also treated as second-class citizens. In Robert Key's book on "Ireland", he recounts how some Ulster Scots sailed across from Ulster to Scotland to worship on a Sunday.

Historians quote 1831 as being the year of Catholic Emancipation with the passing of the law in Parliament to confer equal rights to Catholics, e.g. to become MPs, to go to Oxford and Cambridge etc, but we should not forget that the law included all dissenters, i.e. not just Catholics but also non-conformists. Outwith Scotland, Presbyterians were also non-conformists.

You are right: the Covenanters were against the Crown. Charles, according to his belief in the Divine Right of Kings, believed that he had the right to impose his will on his people, both in England and in Scotland.

15

Navvy,

08/11/2009 08:44:12
Just so, a largely ignored part of our history. 300,000 signatures at that date was a very considerable part of the population.
16

EdwinB,

Glasgow 08/11/2009 09:40:06
National history is about repression and selection; the Glencoe Massacre is remembered but the even greater horrors of the 17th century wars in Scotland are suppressed, horrors inflicted by all sides: the sack of Aberdeen by Montrose's army, the cold-blooded killing of Montrose's Irish troops after Philliphaugh and the even more brutal massacre of their wives and children at Linlithgow.

'Jacobite or Covenanter' is the Scottish version of the classic Sellers and Yeatman distinction between Cavalier or Roundhead. And Jacobites are marketable; covenanters not.

Oh and a note on the signatures for the Covenant: the number is indeed impressive, but if a group of armed men arrive at your door asking you to sign something, you will tend to sign it.






17

mr broon,

Edinburgh 08/11/2009 09:43:57
Scotland has enough problems with religious sectarianism without restoring old monuments or building new symbols to the Covenanters bloody past.

These monuments would simply become a place of pilgrimage for every Protestant bigot in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

It is ironic that this period in Scottish history took place between two Protestant factions: the absentee Stuart Kings who attempted to force their version of Episcopalian Protestantism, still based on the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, on the far away
fundamentalist, Presbyterian Scots.

Let it rest.
18

lulach mac gille coemgain,

08/11/2009 10:39:16
Interesting that both the Jacobean and Covenanting movements were manipulated by the few to the detriment and great suffering of the many !

Has anything changed ?

Freedom is best regarded as doing merely adequate to survive living a majority of your time in leisure whilst experiencing pleasure (not at the suffering of others)and having nobody to tell you what and when to do things or where you can and can’t go !

So like todays Religions and Governance these historic ones fail also.
19

,

08/11/2009 10:51:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

Boudicca's Henchman,

In the wash 08/11/2009 11:35:26
I have been hit by a Revelation, why not be Christians, and follow His teaching as set out in the Sermon on the Mount? that is as translated and not interpreted by those who's lust power is more akin to the worst of dictators
21

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 08/11/2009 12:07:48
#17 - Rubbish, its history and an important part of what made modern Scotland. I dont belive we should hide anything that my have some unpalletable bits and still celebrate some of the positive aspects of it.

Anyway, the Convanteers also picked a fight with Cromwell after the Eglish Civil War, in effect aiding Irish Catholics in their fight, even though ultimatly both were defeated.
22

Mcsnagpile,

08/11/2009 12:39:40
All together interesting—contrary to popular history- during the reign of Mary Queen of Scots the majority of Scots were Roman Catholic—prior to the highland clearances. A socially powerful band of Scots sided with the view of Central European Calvinist Protestants—possibly financed by the English. Curiously they were also Protestants against the Anglican Catholic Church but served as a wedge against Roman Catholicism. When the Highlanders gave allegiance to the King in effect they gave allegiance to the Anglican Church and its head. This puts the Covenanters into a bit of a mire although the Crown has tried to smooth over the cracks,- one must say. That said, one must praise their free thinking spirit and the courage to stand up for their convictions
23

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/11/2009 14:40:24
13 You are right up to a point Smee. The country wasn't a democracy as we have now and the Covenanters re-established a principle which was laid down with the Declaration of Arbroath.

The thing is a lot of Scots think the Jacobites were romantic rebels, and associate that with Scottish independence for some bizarre reason I have never quite fathomed. If you want to look 'though for the seeds of where we are just now, you will find them with the Covernanters, not the Jacobites.
24

GMCD,

08/11/2009 14:53:30
Read some history - the covenanters and their movement did much to start, and decide, the "so-called " English Civil War
25

Mìcheal a Eilean Rùim,

Richmond 08/11/2009 15:20:48
I remember years ago parading at Edinburgh Castle behind the Cameronians, whom I believe were the heirs of the Covenanters. Each man had a black ribbon hanging from the back of his collar in the same style as those worn by Scottish Presbyterian ministers. I was told later that they were always led into battle by their minister, carrying a bible. (This is from memory, so please excuse any missing or incorrect detail.)I believe that may have been the last parade they ever held, but I can't vouch for it. It was the last time I was at Edinburgh Castle and it would have been sometime in the 1950s.
26

Scotfree,

Erskine 08/11/2009 15:29:22
Again we have to question the quality of staff reporters at the Scotsman; you simply cannot contrast Jacobites and covenanters as they were never opposed and relate to two entirely separate eras in history separated by near a century. The covenanters were defenders of Presbyterianism in Scotland; the Jacobites defended the royal line of the Stuart dynasty in Scotland, the latter of which was not in question during the time of the covenanters.
27

BraveLungs,

08/11/2009 16:15:34
#26 I think you've hit the nail on the head. The perception of 18th Jacobites and 17th century covenanters as being somehow on opposing factions is an entirely modern and wrong assumption.
Not disimilar to the poster above who claimed that protestants supported the union of parliament-it's a modern revision based on the modern perceptions rather than an accurate description of what actually happened.

28

bus user,

edinburgh 08/11/2009 16:22:32
This article and all the comments above provide the case for teaching Scottish history in Scottish schools. Scotland was ill-used by both King Charles 1 and by Cromwell during the so-called English Civil War and the Covenanters history is complex. There was the usual cajoing and bribing and threatening of Scots before the whole thing settled down...until the next round in the 1700s when both Pretenders tried and failed in a different attempt to change history. The romanticism or dullness of the protagonists is less important than Scots knowing the facts of their own history.
29

CoI Blimp Vl,

08/11/2009 19:19:41
#12 Observer

I think that can be explained by the near proscription of Scottish history in our schools.

Leaving the sectarian songs and chants of Rangers and Celtic supporters, which are of an entirely Irish origin...As the almost universally acknowledged means of interpreting Scottish history of that period.
30

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 19:58:42
Can't see any harm in them having their monuments if they want them.

Let them pass planning permission and be funded by themselves to begin with.

Let Scottish history be taught from a Scottish point of view to put everything into perspective - if that means we cannot agree then sobeit. That is the Scottish perspective.
31

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 20:01:54
300,000 signed the petition for the covenant.

How many signed the petition for the Treaty of Union?
32

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 20:09:29
So I suppose you could argue that the Covenanters were a bunch of expedients on a damage limitation exercise.

But that is what debate in history is all about.

Why not let them have a monument? Better still, give the OO one too and restrict them to one organised pilgrimage a year - private visits all year round.

33

Robin Ruisseaux,

Tranent, East Lothian 08/11/2009 20:16:56
If you want to see a classic example of a few Scottish historians takng Scotland's past out of the hands of the people by attacking Neil Oliver see the Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6908043.ece

RR

34

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 20:17:21
If anyone thinks I'm trying to take the peeeeeeeeeee here they are wrong.

Let us decide to set aside some ground for monuments to all those who participated in Scotland's history. They would sit, side by side in a circle (yes it is possible) as a tribute to everyone who helped to make up Scotland's past and, by definition, Scotland's present.
35

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 20:29:32
The ground to the north of Stirling Castle would be ideal. Stirling Council once turned town a planning application for film studios to be be built there as the building would deter from the view of the castle (I joke not).

It is well served by road network from most of Scotland.

Plenty of room for marching bands to get in a couple of "tunes" too. All in all, the perfect location to please most of the people more than some of the time.
36

Robin Ruisseaux,

Tranent, East Lothian 08/11/2009 20:29:38
Does Paul Henderson Scott know what he is talking about? So far, judging from his reaction in support of the Devine being right, I think not. Backing up the self-proclaimed authority on Scottish history is no substitute for critical thinking. Open your mind to other possibilities. ‘A history of Scotland’ has reached into the popular imagination in ways which scholarly history, no matter how worthy and it often has been so, has not. A new generation of Scottish historians know the power of popular history. That is nothing new. Walter Scott knew the power of popular narrative, and so should you. As long as Scottish history stays solely in the academic laager, we will never be free...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6908043.ece
37

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 20:33:55
What do you mean it would look like a cemetary?

Apart from the fact that your nearest and dearest are not buried there, it is meant to be a memorial for all and sundry.

What do you mean you support all but not sundry?

Go to the all memorial and bypass the sundry.
38

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 20:41:51
The entrance is the memorial to Scotland. All who enter must respect that.
39

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 20:44:00
A circular gathering point in the centre of the memorials.
40

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 20:46:01
People paying homage.

And the band played on.
41

Robin Ruisseaux,

Tranent, East Lothian 08/11/2009 20:46:59
If you are into the Covenanters, I hope you are all sitting comfortably with the TV tuned to BBC1.

RR
42

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 20:52:16
So it was a a plug then, 41RR, for another whatsisname Oliver load of bovine durchfal.
43

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 20:54:51
The history of Scotland, nor indeed the tele programmes of Scotland, are not published in TV EASY on the main pages.

You have to read the small print if you're Scottish.
44

Jock Tamson,

S 08/11/2009 21:56:28
Watched the programme and have not changed my opinions in any way.

Power guising as religion or religion guising as power is power by any other name.

Like I said earlier, let them all have memorials.
45

livilion,

livingston 08/11/2009 22:02:28
Most kids educated in Scotland for the last three or four decades haven't the faintest idea who or what the Covenanters were or what they were fighting for.

Take #5 BraveLungs as a prime example:
"Let's be honest though-the covenanters are just a bit dull. The Jacobites didn't like the government and launched a full scale war against them.
The covenanter's response to their grievances was to organize a petition!

Not the stuff of hollywood, really, is it?"

If this is typical of the level of understanding of someone who feels strongly enough to post his thoughts on the internet, what chance of an informed debate is there?

FYI Bravelungs,
The Covenanters took on the king,invaded England,and defeated him in open battle. It was the opening shot of what is known in the popular British media as the 'English' Civil War.

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/timelines/scottish-wars.htm
46

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 22:05:53
The whole idea of the limited power of the monarchy goes back to the catholic declaration of Arbroath.

The covernanters were not even original in that.

The whole idea of protestantism comes from Henry V111 who broke away from the catholic church because he couldn't get his own way - the original divine right merchant. C of E is so near catholism as there was nothing else to compare with.

The whole thing was a power struggle and any massaging of that is a distortion of the truth.

47

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 22:15:18
I could touch upon the Anglicisation of the Stewarts but that is relevant and may be moderated.
48

livilion,

livingston 08/11/2009 22:16:39
23 Observer
Perhaps the reason the Jacobites are linked with Scottish independence is that in the aftermath of Culloden Scottish culture traditions, language even the the very name of Scotland were attacked by the British Establishment.

Most folk tend to think the Jacobite civil war was Scotland v England with England winning in extra time.

Ironically for us today it was the Tories who were most closely allied to the Jacobite cause.

But then you knew that already...
49

Robin Ruisseaux,

Tranent, East Lothian 08/11/2009 22:16:57
Livilion45

I'm you might be right on that one. It is all a bit religious for modern Scots to handle. However, Jock Tamson convinces me that the inflexible nature of the Covenanters lives and breathes today.

Come on Jock!
50

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 22:18:36
So once again the History of Scotland has been brought to you from a non-Scottish perspective.

Well, a one dimensional perspective, from a British point of view.
51

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 22:21:10
RR. I give not one prayer for organised religion.
52

Robin Ruisseaux,

Tranent, East Lothian 08/11/2009 22:21:56
Jock50

You are dug in deep aren't you? How would you separate the history of the Covenanters from British history? Better make this explanation a good one!

RR
53

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 22:25:39
Jock50
You seem to need Prof. Allan Macinnes’s view that this series is an ‘Anglo-centric’ perspective on Scottish history. However, He is clearly absolutely deluded. Anyone who watches ‘A history of Scotland’ knows in their hearts and minds that it is not in any sense Anglo-centric. It is especially surprising that professors Devine and Macinnes 9and yourself) are supporters of an elitist view of who owns Scottish history given their backgrounds in political economy and you nationalistic sentiments. To perpetuate such an elitist view only bolsters unionist prejudices that Scots have a “romantic”, and thereby false sense, of their own history. Their and your elitist views only serve the purpose of reassuring the Scottish people that history does not belong to them. It does.

RR
54

livilion,

livingston 08/11/2009 22:28:57
#46 Jock Tamson

You don't think the King of England in London trying to impose an Anglican rite in Scotland in order to make us all 'Great British' without so much as a 'by your leave' to the Kirk or the people had anything to do with it?

How do you reckon such a move would go down today,
say Gordon Brown eg imposing English legislation on Holyrood to bring it into line with English education practice?
Except back then England was a foreign country with historic designs on Scottish sovereignty.

Stern letters to the Scotsman perhaps?
55

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 22:32:33
52, RR. I'm not trying to separate them from British history. They are just another bunch of religious fanatics who allowed themselves to be overcome by British establishments.

All I'm saying is that they took their view on the limitations of the monarchy from a catholic Scotland moral and their religion from a monarch who created a religion on the basis of divine right.

Not very clever considering the head of the CoE is still the monarch.
56

Robin Ruisseaux,

Tranent, East Lothian 08/11/2009 22:32:35
Jock51
Nor do I, but that isn't an answer to 52/53, it is a well-founded principle. Now answer the points raised.

RR
57

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 22:34:49
54, Livilion. What do you mean back then?

Still goes on today.
58

Robin Ruisseaux,

Tranent, East Lothian 08/11/2009 22:37:11
I'm with livilion54. It is a similar idea.

Jock55 you cannot just locate Scottish history back in the 14th century and choose evidence to suit afterwards.

RR
59

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 22:39:58
Gordon Brown. How apt.

Yep the analogy is good.

56. RR. Thought I had.
60

livilion,

livingston 08/11/2009 22:45:34
53 Robin Ruisseaux

History is written by the victors, and any program about British history funded from London is always going to reflect this.

Take the Kings and Queens of Britain, from any text readily available or mass media source, our current monarch is Queen Elizabeth II even though the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland since its inception in 1707 has never had a previous Queen Elizabeth.

Further, Queen Elizabeth II appears to be decended from a line of monarchs going back to Alfred of the burnt cakes, and the Stewart line of the gunpowder plot and Cromwell only appeared in 1603. The Scottish part of the story if referenced at all is restricted to those Scots who largely came off 2nd best in conflicts with England.

Me? I'll take what little we are spoon fed as a start, and hope that our youngsters discover that they too have a history worth telling and that its out there on the internet waiting to be found.
61

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 22:48:28
The Covenanters need another monument like a bullet hole in the head. What Scots needs to do is accept its Calvinist past and live with it. Living in a Jacobite fantasy isn't acceptable.

RR
62

Robin Ruisseaux,

Tranent, East Lothian 08/11/2009 22:50:28
Livilion60
I thought BBC Scotland paid for all this?

RR
63

livilion,

livingston 08/11/2009 22:56:21
62 Robin Ruisseaux
'British' licence fees dispersed from London pays for BBC Scotland.
Are you suggesting BBC Scotland execs are ready to bite the hand that feeds them, when they can't even get a 'Scottish Six' or show SPL matches instead of the English Premiership at the weekend?
64

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 22:56:52
Like I said RR, monuments for all in one big park.

The Germans have a good word for it, Denkmal.

Something to think about. How civil.

Scotland 2009+?. Calvanists, Covenanters, Jacobites &etc all walking about in one place, looking at their own memorials. Side by side in a circle.

We might have grown up by then.



65

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 22:57:44
Livilion60

The idea that this is all some kind of unionist funded conspiracy is deluded. QE2 or not

RR
66

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 22:59:02
Jock64

"Grow up by then"? Do you really think Scots are infantile?

RR
67

livilion,

livingston 08/11/2009 23:01:03
#61 Robin Ruisseaux
For forty years from childhood I passed many covenanter memorials with no idea what they were there for.

The best memorial I suggest would be to give our kids access to their own history as well as King Harold, 1066, and the six wives of Henry VIII.
68

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:01:45
66,RR. As a nation, yes.
69

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:04:24
Jock66
How does a nation, as opposed to a people, grow up?

Livilion67
Agreed, but there are loads of monuments which are already ignored. Understanding is the key.

RR
70

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:05:25
67, livilion. Did you realise that Harold was only the king of Mercia and the Norsemen and the Normans were of the same?

The Norsemen attacked at Stamford bridge and then the Normans attacked at Rye.

There was no England then.
71

livilion,

livingston 08/11/2009 23:06:53
65 Robin Ruisseaux
Conspiracy? mebbes aye, mebbes naw, but surely having Scottish educators say they don't teach Scottish history in schools because it is boring and not worth teaching has got to be wrong?

My young niece refused to recite Burns because she'd been taught that Scot's was just 'bad language'.
Are you ok with that?
72

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:07:21
Jock70

You know there was an England in 1066. Just like there was an Alba/Scotland. Leave them alone on that one!

RR
73

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:07:43
69,RR. Can you define the difference between the Scottish nation and the Scottish people?
74

livilion,

livingston 08/11/2009 23:09:47
70 Jock Tamson
Tell it to the BBC.
75

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:09:57
Get your facts right RR@72. Harold was king of Mercia.
76

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:12:26
I wonder if that history book I got a read of from in 1985 Kensington Library has been removed?
77

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:13:28
Tell it to the BBC? Aye right.
78

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:13:57
Livilion71

Some of them don't want to teach Scottish history as it involves doing a bit of work. It's called being lazy, rather than part of a conspiracy, esp since the change of regime. But hey, it's a supertanker that needs turning and will be in the next few years (provided there isn't another regime change).

Nobody should happy with that. See Kelman's Booker speech. Report them.

RR
79

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:16:42
Jock. When precisely did this king Harald of Mercia reign? I'm curious about this spurious info.
if you mean 1066 you are going to have to accept that your knowledge of English history is 'limited'.
80

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:17:49
So you believe The History of Scotland, as broadcast by masters in England, but do not believe a Scottish observation on the truth about England?
81

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:19:55
Come on Jock,

evidence, not hearsay. give us some dates for the Mercian king Harald...

RR
82

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:22:11
79, RR. You mistake the English version of English history for the real one.

Perhaps you watch the tele for your history. Or London based "knowledge" induction seminars.
83

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:23:24
81 RR. Shall we try 1066 for starters?
84

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:24:22
Hve we all dealt with the reality of Saxon England in 1066 yet?

RR
85

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:27:14
Jock,

answer the question. In 1066 Harald Godwinson was KING OF ENGLAND. Harald Hadradda was king on Norway...
England existed in 1066. Admit it. It wont be too much to do so...
86

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:28:24
In 1066, what was to become England under the present day Norman rule, that land was a mix of rulers and ethnic tribes.
87

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:30:32
Jock 86

which ethnic groups/tribes? where were the borders of England or "what would become England". let's not have a mcglashan moment now.

RR
88

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:32:35
Nothing to do with McGlashan - you, I fear, are having a McPinstripe moment.
89

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:34:50
loving the humour, but you dont get off that easily.
Come on, who were the rulers of England prior to 1066, what ethnic tribes/groups? Or will you admit to England's existance in 1066

RR
90

Jock Tamson,

S 08/11/2009 23:35:27
This whole Anglo-Sachsen thang is a heap o .....

Angles, Sachsens, Danes and Celts permeated the lands south of cumbria and Northumberland - indeed within.
91

Julian.,

edinburgh 08/11/2009 23:37:48
Jock,

Mercia ceased to be an independent kingdom around 50 years before Harold came to power.
92

livilion,

livingston 08/11/2009 23:38:11
70 Jock Tamson
BTW I'm not sure I can let you away with the no England in 1066, if only because an English 'king' Athelstane invading Scotland centuries earlier gave us our national flag, just across the A1 from Haddington at Athelstaneford.

That's why I know the first king of all England was also called Athelstan(the glorious?) and he was a dozen or more 'English' Kings before the famous 1066 shot in the eye Harold.

IMHO Issues of Danish interventions is getting too close to saying Scotland ceased to be when Longshanks Edward Plantagenet invaded here.
Anyway if the English say Athelstan was their first king who are we to argue, and why should we care?
93

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:39:29
Jock 90

I'm going to make a suggestion. Either you should get down the library and read Alex Woolf's book in the New Edinburgh History of Scotland series on Pictland to Alba or you could just admit that England existed in 1066. Let's save time...

RR
94

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:41:26
Livilion92

Wisdom!
let's hope Jock deals with the problem and we can move on to more productive matters...
RR
95

CoI Blimp Vl,

08/11/2009 23:42:03
#61 Robin Ruisseaux,

William Wallace had a beef with the King of England, who acting in his capacity as Overlord of Scotland felt it his right to beat the rebellious Scots into submission.

He had no trouble finding Scottish toadies to do his dirty work.

The Covenanters had a beef with the King of England, who acting in his capacity as King of Scotland felt it his right to beat the rebellious Scots into submission.

He had no trouble finding Scottish toadies to do his dirty work.

The Jacobites had a beef with the King of England, who acting in his capacity as King of Scotland felt it his right to beat the rebellious Scots into submission.

He had no trouble finding Scottish toadies to do his dirty work.

The SNP has a beef with the Prime Minister of England, who acting in his capacity as Overlord of Scotland thinks it his right to beat the rebellious Scots into submission.

He has no trouble finding Scottish toadies to do his dirty work.

Who needs history lessons...It is being replayed daily right in front of our noses.



96

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:42:30
Livilion

take it away....
your chioce of subject...

RR
97

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:43:55
Col Blimp VI

and repeated as farce.

RR
98

Julian.,

edinburgh 08/11/2009 23:47:01
I think we've established that there was an England in 1066.

But how about this thing about Norsemen and Normans being of the same? I'd never heard that one before.
99

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:47:59
Ok, naysayers. Have it your own way. Kensington library is wrong.

But I have to ask of your logic why Harold had to go to Stamford Bridge and then down to Rye if he was the King of England.

You are all listening to English history as told by the English media without rationalising through the medium of your own analytical minds.
100

we the people,

08/11/2009 23:48:06
an interesting piece. i agree with those who said above that comparing jacobites and covenanters is hardly comparing like with like. it´s probably true to say that the jacobites have to some extent inherited the mantle of historical nationalism (like others here, not quite sure why) whereas the covenanters are seen as taleban - esque weirdos. i think its been private citizens and descendants who have catalogued and maintained the scattered covenanter graves and memorials, rather than historic scotland. But i think there has been quite a significant upsurge in interest in the covenanters in recent years. all i would say is that it´s not helpful to try and recast these movements in today´s political categories, better to analyse them within their historical contexts and on their own terms. and particularly not to try to yoke their struggles onto any unionist or republican or protestant or catholic agenda today.
agree with sean k.
101

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:49:09
Julian

welcome to the confusion is history hour. Jock what on earth do you mean?

RR
102

livilion,

livingston 08/11/2009 23:49:30
RR not tonight, early start tomorrow, off to Inverness first thing.
g'night all!
103

Robin Ruisseaux,

08/11/2009 23:52:25
we the people

the voice of reason? Come on Jock. Surely you cant go for that.

RR
104

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/11/2009 23:53:09
Athelstane - geez a break.

98. Julian, you have established nothing. Your ignorance on the link between the Norse and the Nors tells its own story.
105

livilion,

livingston 08/11/2009 23:56:16
99 Jock Tamson
Sorry pal, but before there were any buses why would Harold trapse all the way up to Northumbria to sort out invading vikings and then hotfoy it all the way down to Hastings if it was somebody else's problem?

#98 Julian
Nor(se)men/Normans, before proper spelling was invented?
Just google it

G'night this time.
106

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 00:01:25
Geez. My geography is bad but at least I know Stamford Bridge is not in North Humber ia.

There are those so blind they cannot see.

The Norse invaded Normandy - get it?

Easy to see who looks at the world through English eyes on here.
107

Julian.,

edinburgh 09/11/2009 00:02:29
Actually he could be right on the Norman/Norsemen thing.

It appears the Normans are direct descendants of the Norsemen who settled in Normandy.

To complicate matters even further the Stuart monarchy in Scotland, and later England as well, were actually descended from the Normans...or is someone going to tell me I'm wrong on that one.
108

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:03:13
That's right Jock, everyone is secretly English...

Mcglashan strikes again!

RR
109

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:04:34
Julian107

That's like saying because I've an Irish great grannie I'm culturally Irish.

RR
110

Vista,

09/11/2009 00:04:40
4.Handsome Scotsman,

"Handsome Scotsman", that's an oxymoron is it not?
111

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 00:07:25
Looking at Scottish history -or English history - through miodern English revisionist eyes does not make you English.

It makes you see Scottish history and the history of Britain through english spectacles.

Eh no, RR?
112

Julian.,

edinburgh 09/11/2009 00:08:45
Jock,

Your statement that there was no England in 1066 and insistence on sticking to that tells another story.
113

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 00:08:52
I thought the Danes controlled most of Northern England prior to 1066 and King Alfred of the cakes was the King of Wessex...which confused me a bit because I know that Wessex were a pub pop band from the early-mid seventies.
114

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:11:11
Jock111
where can i buy these English spectacles. C/O John Major? (or is that Mair?)

RR
115

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:13:19
Col Blimp VI

You are clearly at those 'English [re]spectacles' again. Tell us more about the pub band Wessex!

RR
116

Julian.,

edinburgh 09/11/2009 00:14:14
Robin # 109,

You're right. I wasn't really trying to say it makes you culturally the same. I don't know why but it's interesting. It's also quite a good thing to point out to people like BNP supporters.
117

livilion,

livingston 09/11/2009 00:16:30
106 Jock Tamson
couldn't resist, but your geography is embarassing.
The Battle of Stamford Bridge was in Yorkshire, not Chelsea, football casuals had still to be invented.

North-umbria: Berwick upon Tweed down to the Humber Estuary.

D'ye gee in yet, cos its now way past my bed time?
118

Jock Tamson,

S 09/11/2009 00:17:37
You can squabble amongst yourselves now or unite against me.

I'm off to bed and I won't lose any sleep over it.

Another memorial for the side by side circle of memorials - the memorial to those who fought for the English version of British history.

Perhaps the memorial should be for those who fought for the Scottish version but I can't see many subscribers on here.
119

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:18:47
Julian 116

is Nick Griffin into Wessex!

RR
120

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:20:34
Livilion117
and Jock

come on Jock, just give in to the reality of England and let Livi get to bed!

RR
121

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 00:21:04
#115 Robin Ruisseaux,

I think I saw them by mistake in the Magpie one night...didn't stay long...the name kinda turned me off.
122

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:23:48
Col Blimp VI

I'm seeing it now: Stonehenge, Woollen cloaks, Nuts in May, Nick Griffin and real ale. Ah, a Saxon idyll...

RR
123

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 00:26:59
Yes, livilion. I know where Stamford Bridge is - I gave the clue in my phœnetic. Wallace was there.

Like I said geography is not my strong point so Northumbria/ Yorkshire.

Stamford Bridge football ground is in Fulham.

You really have to do better.
124

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 00:27:30
#122 Robin Ruisseaux

What has Nick Grifen got to do with Dark Age England?

Ha ha ha...Daft question.

Nothing relay changes...History keeps repeating its self.
125

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:28:34
Blimp 121

Was that Magpie in 73 or 74?

RR
126

Julian.,

edinburgh 09/11/2009 00:28:49
Perhaps the memorial should be for humility.

Robin,

The pop band or the region? Either way it would probably depend on whether they have a high percentage of the indigenous race in them.
127

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 00:28:59
Give in to the reality of England? What reality of England?

Bunch of conquered thugs?
128

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:30:45
Jock,

did you watch Magpie then. or is that an imperialist influence too far?

RR
129

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 00:32:44
Magpie? Me? After my time with kiddies' TV
130

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 00:33:03
#125 Robin Ruisseaux

Round about then, the place seems to have shrunk a bit since then... I think Thrush were one of the other bands that used to play there.
131

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 00:33:19
Jenny Handley?
132

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:34:20
Julian

I'm seeing Wessex as a prog rock Brithonic collective heavily influeced by Germanic AG trends and Nick Griffon.

Any info?

RR
133

Jock Tamson,

S 09/11/2009 00:36:03
Col. I knew a girl who had a load of Thrush and passed it onto me.
134

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:37:02
Jock
Jenny Handley.
Man About the House?

RR
135

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 00:37:53
RR

I think they wore suits...but I could be confusing them with someone else.
136

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 00:39:38
Sex means Sachsen, Julian. The areas they controlled are delineated by the names Wessex, Essex and Sussex. Rather localised as opposed to nationalised, wouldn't you say?
137

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 00:40:03
Jock

Jenny Handley?

I saw a pic of her in a porno mag...Pete Murray was in it as well...the mag I mean, they wern't so explicit back then.
138

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:40:40
Blimp 135

you seem to be confusing that with Nick Griffin or history. he easily confuses the two. Nonetheless, suit you say? What colour?

RR
139

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 00:42:06
RR. That was the same guy that was in Robin's Nest.

But Jimmy Handley was Jenny Handley's father.
140

livilion,

livingston 09/11/2009 00:43:06
Jock your phonetic made me wonder if you know where North umbria is at all
btw you do know King Harold's full name was
King Harold II Godwinson of England?
The clue here is 'Harold II'. although why I'm still out of my bed disputing this must be because I'm getting into brain fade.

#107 Julian
Robert the Bruce's forebears arrived on the Great Britain archipelago before William the B'tard by a century or so, some even contend that the Bruce's were Flemmings from 'Belgium'.

It's been fun but it won't be when I'm half asleep stuck behind that Morrison's truck in the morning.
night night.
141

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 00:44:27
Used to buy Brylcreem because of Pete Murray.
142

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:44:27
Jock,

dont take the the wrong way, but you are very knowledgeable about British comedy actors...
dont you fell colonised/compromised given you prior positions?

RR
143

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 00:45:38
142, RR. What else could you watch on telly?
144

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 00:45:47
Who was Cliff Handley?
145

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:45:55
Night night livilion.

RR
146

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 00:46:53
Was Chick Murray his dad?
147

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:48:57
Blimp VI

Wasn't that they guy who did Tonight in the 60s?

RR
148

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 00:49:18
140, livilion. I'll believe Harold's title when I see the original manuscript it is written in - and the extent of "England" at the time.
149

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 00:52:45
God Pete Murray has just reminded me of how much I used to hate Radio One DJ's although he was far from being the worst of them.

I listened to the Chris Moyles show recently...they are no less despicable now than they were then.

Unintentional Imperialist Airheads to a man...except Annie Nightingale she's OK but she must be about 95 yrs old.

150

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 00:55:26
Good fun tonight but must go to bed.

First time in ages that I've had mental stimulation without moronic diatribes interjecting.

Thank you RR, livilion and ColB.

Night, night (as unrepentant as ever but my heid hurts in a good way. Exercising muscles unused for so long)

151

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 00:56:10
Blimp VI 149

What is the basis of this unionist broadcasting conspiracy? I'm intrigued...

RR
152

livilion,

livingston 09/11/2009 00:57:16
148 Jock Tamson
here you go:
http://www.battle-of-hastings-1066.org.uk/kings-england-947-1066.htm
153

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 00:57:58
#47
Robin Ruisseaux

He wrote the words to Scotland the Brave...I won't thank him for that and I think he did a book on Scottish History.
154

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 01:02:17
Blimp 153

And that is the true basis of the unionist broadcasting conspiracy?

RR
155

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 01:02:31
#151 Robin Ruisseaux,

Not a conspiracy...a fact.

If you get most of your information from an alien source your will eventually morph into the monster.

The Poor English are beginning to feel the effects of over exposure to American culture.
156

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/11/2009 01:02:46
152, livilion. Written by the English for the internet and you believe it.

Bedtime.
157

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 01:09:03
What does this conspiracy/fact have to do with the Covenanters?

RR
158

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 01:10:18
Jock Tamson

Was that period not known as the Dark Ages...because next to He Haw was known about it?

King Arthur! when was he King of England?
159

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 01:13:09
I think it was known as the dark ages as next to nothing was known before norman wisdom appeared...

RR
160

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 01:18:59
#157 Robin Ruisseaux

The Covenanters play no part in the Official History of England ( though they kicked off the English Civil War)...therefore we are not taught about them.

Consequence of the old non-conspiracy fact...the only conspirators are the Scottish Unionists...I doubt if the English are even aware of their existence.
161

Robin Ruisseaux,

09/11/2009 01:25:43
Blimp,

I shall leave the final post of words of wisdom to you on the topic of why the Scottish Unionists are, like the grave next to Arch Stanton, unknown.

I shall read the last post, then, for me, it is off to the Night Garden.

Farewell fellow traveller,

RR

162

CoI Blimp Vl,

09/11/2009 01:37:18
#161 Robin Ruisseaux

Cue the music of Ennio Morricone...and the Unionists receiving their reward...In Hell.
163

John McBride,

Glasgow 09/11/2009 09:30:11
Great article, and so true that anything Protestant in the modern era is perceived and treated in such a way, which of course is disgraceful. The Protestant movement is one of the finest examples of people power over tyrannical leaders, and this fact should never be forgotten.

The only down side to the article was Tom Devine's part. How can he honestly state that people who fought for religious freedom were seen as some sort of Taleban? Absolute nonsense Tom. I wonder what else this historian claims regarding Protestantism.
164

Pilrig.,

Livingston 09/11/2009 20:12:16
163 - well religious freedom up to a point. Episcopalians and - shock horror - Catholics were excluded from this 'freedom'.
When we write about the Covananters we should perhaps make a distinction between the National Covenant, (signed by patriots and free-thinkers who wouldn't stand for tyranny , one of those who signed of course was the Covenanters' bete noire : Montrose) and the Solemn League and Covenant, which in a nutshell, would have enforced Calvinism onto England, an exercise in hubris.
I don't think Devine's description of the Covananters as a sort of Taleban is far off the mark, I believe Allan Massie made a similar comment. You only need to read Scott's 'Old Mortality' and his description of the theological extremism pervading the Covenanting Army on the eve of the battle of Bothwell Brig to get a picture of violent fundamentalism . And make no mistake, the Covenaters could be a bloodthirtsy bunch, one only needs to be reminded of the massacre of of the Irish women and such camp followers in the aftermath of the battle (if this encounter deserves such a description) of Philiphaugh.
165

Captain Harry,

Gandamack 10/11/2009 15:26:46
It wouldn't be like Professor of Bigotry, Tom Devine to have negative comments on anything remotely protestant. If it turned out that the angels themselves were of the reformed faith then this man would come down on the side of Lucifer himself.

On the subject of Covenanter monuments, there is a lovely little grave dedicated to Covenanters killed fleeing Bothwell Brig in a graveyard in Hamilton. You should give it a visit before Prof Devine defaces it.
166

John McBride,

Glasgow 11/11/2009 01:27:23
Nobody was excluded from religious freedom by the Protestants. This is a commonly perceived myth.

Sadly, during the course of battles, there were many atrocities carried out, by both sides. Such was the nature of the times.
167

skully,

North Briton 11/11/2009 12:25:13
Brigadoonists
Back to the original story please !
Covenanters are regarded by some as freedom fighters.
They were the original free thinkers "All men equal under God". These brave people stood bravely against the crown and the English parliament to opposed attempts by the English and Scottish bigots to destroy Scottish religion, culture and our national identity.
Now the Tartan Taliban and Brigadoonists rewrite history !oh the revisionists! and their nutty professors~ they can see that far past their own short comings, bigotry and Bile!
how can they attempt to see far into the past?
God help us all
168

skully,

North Briton 11/11/2009 12:26:37
Brigadoonists
Back to the original story please !
Covenanters are regarded by some as freedom fighters.
They were the original free thinkers "All men equal under God". These brave people stood bravely against the crown and the English parliament to opposed attempts by the English and Scottish bigots to destroy Scottish religion, culture and our national identity.
Now the Tartan Taliban and Brigadoonists rewrite history !oh the revisionists! and their nutty professors~ they cant see that far past their own short comings, bigotry and Bile!
how can they attempt to see far into the past?
God help us all

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.