Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 7th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Call to end bar on Catholic monarch



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: 26 March 2008
THE government is to consider abolishing the 300-year-old Act of Settlement that prevents Catholics ascending to the throne.
The move was revealed by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, after he unveiled his sweeping draft Constitutional Reform Bill yesterday.

While the bill did not include any move to abolish what Catholics say is legalised discrimination, the matter
was raised in the Commons by the Livingston Labour MP, Jim Devine, a Catholic.

Describing the act as "legalised sectarianism which has no role in the 21st century", he called for it to be scrapped.

Mr Straw told him the position was complicated by the monarch's position as head of the Anglican church but accepted the law was seen as "antiquated" and said: "We are certainly ready to consider this."

However, abolishing the Act of Settlement would also require changes to the Act of Union, which safeguards the role of the Protestant Presbyterian Church in Scotland. And, given Prime Minister Gordon Brown's fears of the influence of Nationalists, the government may be reluctant to unpick parts of the legislation that formally holds the UK together.

Measures contained in the draft bill unveiled by Mr Straw include revoking the Prime Minister's powers to send troops to war unilaterally.

In future, parliament would have a vote on sending armed forces into conflict. However, that would not be applied if parliament was in recess or for special forces' operations.

Other proposals include watering down the Prime Minister's powers to appoint Church of England bishops and enshrining civil servants' impartiality in law for the first time. The relaxation of rules governing the flying of the Union Flag from public buildings would continue.

Since becoming Prime Minister last year, Mr Brown has emphasised the need for far-reaching constitutional reforms to restore trust in government after the controversies over the Iraq war and the "cash for honours" affair.

Mr Straw said the latest measures were not a "final blueprint", but part of a much wider programme of building a "new constitutional settlement".

For the Tories, shadow justice secretary Nick Herbert warned that "unbalanced devolution has unleashed the forces of Nationalism" and there was still no answer to the West Lothian question.





The full article contains 371 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Guga II,

Rockall 26/03/2008 03:01:53
Why not just bring in a law barring any form of monarchy. We don't need these parasites, nor should we be forced to pay for them.

Once we're independent, we can get shot of them anyway. If the English want to keep tham, that's fine, as long as they don't expect us to pay for them.
2

Royster,

26/03/2008 05:14:48
Well, this is a pressing issue isn't it? I mean ho many people bang on about this during their trips to the corner shop. No need for a monarchy but, to be honest, I quite like having Charlie boy shuffling about and Phil the Greek is always good for a laugh.
3

Bob Christie,

26/03/2008 07:20:03
Repeal the discriminatory Act of Settlement.
While you are at it repeal the Act of Union as well.

YOU know it makes sense!
4

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 26/03/2008 07:29:30
It's timely in a way. Could a Roman Catholic monarch sign into law embryology legislation that is officially opposed by the church?
5

John S,

26/03/2008 07:40:45
THE government is to consider abolishing the 300-year-old Act of Settlement that prevents Catholics ascending to the throne does this mean that a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or Jew etc anyone but a Catholic can ascend to the throne ? I do feel this is discrimination in the year 2008.
6

eric,

26/03/2008 07:49:21
Its all made up as it goes along ,Time to scrap it and while we are at it can we scrap the TV licence!Without asking Queeny
7

yockel,

26/03/2008 08:44:32
Forget it Jack, Tony is never going to be Queen.
8

Boy Wonder,

26/03/2008 09:06:05
Abolish everything ... then we'll all find something to be happy about!
9

Bob Christie,

26/03/2008 09:08:02
#5 John S

You understand correctly. The Act of Settlement is quite specific in that ONLY Catholics are prevented from ascending the throne.
It is quite possibly the most pernicious piece of legislation ever enacted by the ENGLISH Parliament, (1701)
The second of course was the Act of Union where Scotland was sold down the river by some of its own aristocracy, and of course the people were NEVER asked then or indeed since if they wanted Union with England.

I am not Catholic but I have never understood why the Catholic Church has NEVER legally challenged the Act of Settlement using laws enacted since.

10

Infidel,

Dar ul harb 26/03/2008 09:31:15
In a secular society it should not matter what religion (if any) the head of state has, so long as he/she does not abuse his/her position to promote it.
11

E. Smith,

Central Texas 26/03/2008 10:11:44
I don't suppose that the United Kingdom could see fit to completely separate Church and State, or would this concept completely dissolve the constitutional monarchy?

Americans take the concept of "Separation of Church and State" for granted, although admittedly the American Civil Liberties Union has helped to enforce the ban on no prayers in public schools and no creches at county courthouses. Therefore, it's hard for an American to grasp the concept that the Monarch must be an Anglican South of the Border as well as a member of the Church of Scotland--not that membership in any Church would reflect upon his or her behaviour.
12

Highland Mighty,

26/03/2008 10:29:11
Wow, such important matters!

Is there a Catholic claiming the throne then?

Have we travelled back to the Middle Ages?

This is a sad joke now!
13

Sgurr,

26/03/2008 10:51:28
They might as well change it - it is unlikely to be required any time soon, but it would send out the right message. Whilst they are about it, they should open it to any or no faith. Heck! Why not also open the role of Queen to anyone at all? There could be a sort of ballot run every 6 years or so, and the position could be rotated...not just open to members of the royal family...

Sorry, getting carried away there..the above sounds too much like a democracy & that system delivered us Saint Tony. Might as well keep the status quo then, eh?
14

Biker,

Ayr 26/03/2008 11:32:29
The Monachy, The Church. Two outdated, outmoded monoliths fighting for survival. Who cares.
15

Calum Crubag,

26/03/2008 12:45:51
#14 - true. Let's get rid of them both.

As a matter of interest though, if the Catholics are so bothered by this does that mean that a Protestant or Sikh can become Pope?

Catholics won't even let 'non-believers' work in their schools. This is a bit rich coming from them.
16

BrightonRox,

26/03/2008 12:54:01
Extend the Act. It was enabled to prevent the accession of Catholics to the throne so, in a secular society, let's ensure that faith and religion are completely divorced from the State. NO religion should receive special consideration. Close all 'faith-based' schools.
Let's put some distance between the Godists and normal humans. Drum the ju-ju men out of our society.
Anyone claimimg to believe in the ramblings of ancient desert-dwellers should receive free psychiatric treatment.
If we don't stop them, all of them, we'll be dragged back into a new Dark Age of superstition, ignorance, hatred and religious frenzy...................oh d4mn, it's started.
17

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 13:00:20
is bishop devine wanting a promotion? perish the thought.
18

Joe M.,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 14:29:05
So Brown has had his fingers burnt by the RC church and thinks this might be a neat wheeze to bring them back in line. (Or he will more likely say he's thinking about it and then do nothing.)

Yes it should happen. Any constitutional bias against any religion is fundamentally wrong and this act should have been torn up and redrafted a long time ago. Tony Blair was asked to do just that but refused.

I question the timing of this announcement however. Personally I don't believe the British state can ever become fully functionally democratic as it is rotten with privelege and vested interests.

Every MP has sworn to uphold the monarch as head os state, yet what about the republicans in this country?

A new Scottish state could have a modern written constitution quite easily. That would be preferable to any piece meal crums therown by Brown since he knows his own position is severely threatened by the SNP's advance in the polls.

Ignoring independence in the new commission isn't the brightest plan he's ever had btw.
19

Hunky Dorey,

Glasgow a city of equals 26/03/2008 14:43:40
#15 Calum.......... The Queen of England is only a figurehead in the Anglican church and does not legislate for her church.However,the Pope and the leaders of Islam legislate for their respective faiths.Having a Protestant legislating for the Islamic and Catholic faiths could present some problems. In relation to the sectarian act of settlement 1701.I feel that this sorry piece of bigotry is outdated and has no place in a modern society.State sponsored sectarianism is wrong.Peoples of all faiths and none should be held equal before our laws. More than 70% of people in the UK do not attend church, so why the anti- Catholic bigotry? The time has come for a complete separation of church and state in the UK,as this will bring equality for all our citizens in relation to sectarian legislation. EQUALITY FOR ALL! END SECTARIAN LEGISLATION NOW !
20

FS,

Stirling 26/03/2008 14:44:36
#12

It's important not in of itself but in the wider context of disenfranchising a group of people. We may never get rid of discrimination completely from society but at least the laws can be brought up to date and be devised/revised to treat all social groups as equal as possible.
21

Hunky Dorey,

Glasgow 26/03/2008 14:46:10
#18 Joe M.......... Good Post!
22

Hunky Dorey,

Glasgow. and proud of it! 26/03/2008 14:56:11
#16 We appear to be in the dark ages with idiots like you going around. Cop yourself on and grow up!
23

Hunky Dorey,

26/03/2008 14:58:42
# 12........ Go change your nappy!
24

Thomas Campbell,

New York 26/03/2008 15:18:18
As usual, whenever a story touching on the monarchy appears, a torrent of misinformation and ignorance results.
The Queen is not (pace Jack Straw) "Head" of the C of E; the [parliamentary] title of Supreme Governor is interpreted these days quite differently than it was 300 years ago, thanks to the flexibility of the constitution.
The Act of Settlement says that whoever in the line of Succession marries a Roman Catholic is automatically disbarred from that line. They may marry whomever they want, but like Peter Philips in a few months, will no longer legally be able to inherit the Throne. Some would say this limits the "rights" of members of the Royal Family, NOT the entire body of Roman Catholic believers. If the monarchy were an institution open to anyone (which it is not), then that Act might be construed as bigotted.
The main question for constitutional lawyers will be if that part can be simply abrogated wthout affecting
the whole.
Dragging the Act of Union, the exisistence of the monarchy, the mere existence of "religion" in the first place (and its role in the modern state)-while interesting topics in themselves-only complicate the matter, and I suspect cause the politicians to want to shy away from the whole issue. Interestingly, the abolishing of this provision of the Act of Settlement will only strengthen the position of the monarchy, which is why I am for it.
And E Smith from Texas would be do well to study our own American history concerning Church & State-not quite as simplistic as he/she makes out. And please, leave the ACLU out of it...the majority of Americans disagree with it.
25

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 17:50:30
What a waste of time.

Neither The Prince of Wales, nor Prince William are Catholics. It is doubtful that Prince William's children or grandchildren will be either.

Accordingly, you would probably have to wait another 300 years to see the recinding of this law being taken advantage of.

Have our politicians really got nothing better to do with their time and OUR money?
26

zeno,

www.thinkhumanism.com 26/03/2008 18:48:29
Yes, get rid of this religious discrimination - it has no place in the 21st century. And while we're at it, get rid of all other discriminatory religious laws like those allowing religions control of state-funded schools and those that allow unelected religious bishops a say in our democratic processes.
27

John Blackley,

Florida 26/03/2008 19:22:54
Is this really the most important thing Jack Straw could be doing with his time (and British taxpayers' money)?

The Act of Settlement? What burning desire exists to change it? Are millions of catholics storming Whitehall, demanding the right to succeed to the throne? (as if Britons would get off their behinds long enough to storm anything beyond the pub) Is there another girlfriend for one of the Royal princes we haven't heard about yet? Does Tony Blair want to be the next queen?

Or is this just another pathetic attempt to pander to a particular set of voters with a meaningless gesture?
28

Navvy,

27/03/2008 01:23:15
Get a little background before ranting
Read up on the Synod of Whitby at which the imperialist RC church out witted the native Culdee church and left the Pope in supreme charge in these islands. Kings and coutries jumped to the whims of Popes who were influenced by the powerful RC monarchs geographically close to Rome. Spain, France, Austro Hungry. Things got so bad that there were once 2 Popes. The RC church has always been intensely political and power seeking. If it wern't for the RC church's sacking of Constantinople Turkey would still be a Christian country and ther would have been no ethnic cleansing in Jugoslavia, Serbia, Bosnia

29

brythan@aol.com,

VA, USA 28/03/2008 02:01:20
Abolish the Act of Settlement, and you will find Roman Catholic prelates trying to convert William, Harry or someone in the next generation. Once that is done, you will have the Pope refusing to bless any royal marriage after that unless the proposed spouse is only RC and demanding that any offspring only be reared as RCs because that is what already happens in the royal houses of Europe or even the rest of us poor commoners. So much for broadmindedness!
30

Rozz Fyffe,

Scotland 28/03/2008 02:53:55
We can comment on this but not the radical Muslim!!!
31

Alba Abú,

Edinburgh 30/03/2008 19:44:57
# 25 Alternative........ So! you think that your explanation is a good reason for prolonging this blatant bigotry and discrimination against a section of the British people?
32

Alba Abú,

Edinburgh 30/03/2008 19:48:47
#29 brythan. I hope that you decide to stay in the USA,as Scotland can well do without your ignorant 17th century bigotry.
33

Alba Abú,

Edinburgh 30/03/2008 19:51:17
#27 No! its called equal rights for all.
34

Alba Abú,

Edinburgh 30/03/2008 19:52:14
#28 I think that it is time for your pills!
35

brythan@aol.com,

01/04/2008 00:21:10
#32 My "ignorant 17th century bigotry" derives from my nephew being told by his wife's priest that his Anglican prayers were unacceptable at the dinner table in front of their children. He was told that they would confuse the children and that the papers he signed when they married prohibited him from having any influence in their spiritual education! That occurred in the 20th century two years before the advent of the 21st century.
36

Alba Abú,

Edinburgh 14/05/2008 23:24:13
#35 But your brain is still very much trapped in the 17th century. Britain's Catholics will have equal rights ,whether you like it or not!
37

monkey man,

23/06/2008 15:51:27
A Protestant from the Church Of Scotland or Presbyterian denomination can't be Monarch either...only an Anglican, so the Act Of Settlememt has nothing to do with sectarian anti-Roman Catholicism as this question has been so obviously skewed and twisted.

Genuine state sponsored sectarianism can be found in the classrooms of Roman Catholic schools where Protestant teachers are barred from promotion simply because of their religion.
38

Ribbonman,

London 30/06/2008 20:32:01
#37 Monkeyman.... You are well named. It is obvious that you have not read the anti- Catholic British act of settlement,otherwise you would not be spouting such rubbish.
39

Luke Skywalker,

04/07/2008 16:56:52
If this was to happen, then the Monarch could read the Bible too on TV in the weekly series after the Pope. The Pope could do Genesis, the Monarch could do Exodus, Tony could do Leviticus and so on. Sounds rivetting stuff to me. Just a thought - what adverts would be allowed between chapters?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.