General

By Martin Kelly
 
Scottish Secretary of State Michael Moore is this evening facing calls to explain why Scotland’s most senior Catholic was not invited to join an official UK delegation on a visit to meet with Pope Benedict XVI.
 
The official Vatican trip, arranged by the UK Foreign Office, included the head of the Catholic Church in England & Wales, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, but no invite was extended to Scotland’s Cardinal O’Brien.

Cardinal O’Brien, as well as being the most senior clergyman in Scotland, is also the head of the Church in the UK – outranking the Archbishop of Westminster who was personally invited by UK Cabinet Minister Baroness Warsi.

The trip, which took place today, saw the Tory Peer Warsi and other UK Ministers including Scottish Secretary Michael Moore, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Alan Duncan the Minister for International Development, meet with Vatican officials in face to face talks.

British Ambassador Nigel Baker was also present at the meeting which saw the Pope receive a message from the Queen and a letter from UK PM David Cameron.

Peter Kearney, of the Scottish Catholic Media Office said: “This is a very unfortunate oversight on the part of the UK Government to have pulled together a high level delegation to visit the Holy See to have an audience with the Pope and not, ironically, to have included Britain’s most senior Catholic, Cardinal Keith O’Brien.”

It is understood Cardinal O’Brien only learned of the planned visit last Thursday.  Asked why Cardinal O’Brien had not been invited, Michael Moore claimed that it was up to the Vatican to invite him.

However Mr Moore will surely face questions after it emerged that Archbishop Nichols was officially invited by a UK Government Minister.  There will also be questions for the UK Government to answer given that the visit was clearly seen as a very high level delegation representing the Queen and the UK PM.

An outspoken figure, Cardinal O’Brien has made his views known on many issues from same sex marriage to nuclear weapons on the Clyde.

The snub will fuel speculation that the Cardinal’s views on Scottish independence may have been behind the invitation oversight.

The senior Clergyman is on record as saying he would be “happy” if Scots voted for independence and that it would be coming “before too long”.


Comments  

 
#
mato21
2012-02-15 21:33

Moore caught out lying again
What a surprise
 
 
#
Auld Bob
2012-02-15 22:34

Quoting mato21:

Moore caught out lying again
What a surprise






Looks more, to me, as if Moore is already accepting that Scotland IS an independent country and should thus be the one to invite the RC Hecht Heid Ane. Not for the first time has Moore’s actions shown that he Thinks England is independent of not only Scotland but of the United Kingdom. After all did invite what HE THOUGH OF as the Hight Head One of the English Roman Catholic Church – not that of the UK.

 
 
#
call me dave
2012-02-15 23:18

Aye Bob his mind set probably is as you say but nevertheless there are flunkies who deal with the protocol in these affairs.

It would have been made clear to the government by officials that Cardinal O’Brien should have been on the VIP guest list. It’s a plain and simple snub by ‘call me Dave’s political cleek’!

I’m not a catholic but if I were I can see that it might upset me.

Anyhoo! another poor show and another Westminster clanger!
 

 
#
Jenny2603
2012-02-15 21:36

Whether this is ignorance or pettiness on their part. It’s pretty shabby behaviour on the part of the unionists -do they really think this helps their cause?
 
 
#
RaboRuglen
2012-02-15 21:54

Hi Jenny,

Yes it seems that they do or we would not be subject to their ridiculous scare stories every 5 minutes.

No, I don’t get it either.

Regards,

ps Don’t recognise your moniker. If you’re new, a very warm welcome. If not, sorry.
 
 
#
Jenny2603
2012-02-15 22:09

Hi RaboRuglen,
Have been here a few weeks though haven’t posted much. But thanks for the welcome.

Their tactics are completely bizarre. However I wonder if it simply didn’t occur to them that a Scottish Cardinal could be head of the UK Catholic Church.
 
 
#
nchanter
2012-02-15 22:17

Quoting Jenny2603:

Hi RaboRuglen,
Have been here a few weeks though haven’t posted much. But thanks for the welcome.

Their tactics are completely bizarre. However I wonder if it simply didn’t occur to them that a Scottish Cardinal could be head of the UK Catholic Church.


They think we are all wee frees up here

 
 
#
scotus
2012-02-15 22:22

Quoting Jenny2603:

Hi RaboRuglen,
Have been here a few weeks though haven’t posted much. But thanks for the welcome.

Their tactics are completely bizarre. However I wonder if it simply didn’t occur to them that a Scottish Cardinal could be head of the UK Catholic Church.


Surely the Archbishop of Yes Minister could have put them right?

 
 
#
Robabody
2012-02-15 22:35

Quoting Jenny2603:

However I wonder if it simply didn’t occur to them that a Scottish Cardinal could be head of the UK Catholic Church.



As a protestant catholic (practising but largely failing and usually non attending) I didn’t know that. However the UK gov employ people to ensure diplomatic etiquette is assured. How come they didn’t know? Answers on the back of a fag packet….

Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if the first words the Pope uttered were ” Oi Moore mush, where’s our much loved O’Brian?” In Latin of course, to keep with the spirit of the occasion you understand.

 
 
#
Jenny2603
2012-02-15 23:04

That’s very true. They do have people who know so it’s likely to be an anti-independence dig but taking account of their general dismissive attitude towards Scotland it may well be that they simply assumed the top man in England was the highest ranking UK Catholic. Either way it’s pretty damning for the unionist cause.
 
 
#
InfrequentAllele
2012-02-16 00:06

There is no UK Catholic church. The Catholic church in England and Wales is entirely separate administrativel  y from the Catholic church in Scotland. The Scottish Catholic hierarchy answers directly to the Vatican as a “special daughter of the Church”.
 
 
#
scotus
2012-02-16 00:20

Quoting InfrequentAllel  e:

There is no UK Catholic church. The Catholic church in England and Wales is entirely separate administrativel  y from the Catholic church in Scotland. The Scottish Catholic hierarchy answers directly to the Vatican as a “special daughter of the Church”.



If that’s the case what’s Michael Moore got to do with it?

 
 
#
InfrequentAllele
2012-02-16 00:29

God knows what Michael Moore has got to do with anything.
 

 
#
proudscot
2012-02-16 01:09

Quoting InfrequentAllel  e:

There is no UK Catholic church. The Catholic church in England and Wales is entirely separate administrativel  y from the Catholic church in Scotland. The Scottish Catholic hierarchy answers directly to the Vatican as a “special daughter of the Church”.



As I posted on another thread, I as a non practising member of the Church of Scotland, am still fully aware that a Cardinal is the highest rank in the Church of Rome, under the Pope. So, how did this Warsi woman not know that? My only conclusion is that she did know and the inclusion of the English Archbishop was a deliberate snub to Cardinal O’Brien and the uppity Scots.

Maybe she’s been reading her history, and learned that one of the main supporters of Scottish independence during the 13th century wars, was the Church (aw Kaffliks, nae Proddies at that time). So she thinks Cardinal O’Brien will team up with Canon Kenyon Wright on the side of the “separationists”.

 
 
#
Barontorc
2012-02-16 11:37

It says a little about the English Catholic Archbishop doing a bit of a Nelson, when I’m sure both he and his advisors are well aware that his part in such a delegation involving the UK Gov, would be better run past the UK’s senior Catholic cleric.

There’s no doubt it was intended as a snub and ignored protocols.
 

 
#
zedeeyen
2012-02-15 21:49

I’m more interested to know why we’re paying for the governor general et al to go grovelling to a religious leader at all than why O’Brien didn’t go.
 
 
#
Jiggsbro
2012-02-15 21:54

It’ll be a trade mission. They’re looking to attract inward investment from the Vatican and to improve their exports of…whatever it is that the UK exports these days. Jobs, probably.
 
 
#
zedeeyen
2012-02-15 21:59

The silly hat and silk frock industries must be bigger than I thought.
 

 
#
Jenny2603
2012-02-15 23:09

It’ll be because the Vatican is an independent state of sorts as well as a religious centre. If only Scotland were so big we could be a real self governing state too…..oh wait!
 
 
#
edinburgh quine
2012-02-16 11:32

Just what I was wondering, Zedeeyen. We dont trade with them, do we?
 

 
#
maisiedotts
2012-02-15 21:50

Oooops!

They just lost the Catholic vote ;-D
 
 
#
proudscot
2012-02-16 01:16

As well as the thoosands of disgruntled Berrs, whose revered Rangers are being forced into administration by their beloved queen Frau Lizzie Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’s tax gatherers!
 

 
#
ButeHouse
2012-02-15 21:58

This was no oversight. The current unionist strategy is to downplay Scotland and her leaders as much as possible, thus Cameron is saying our FIRST MINISTER i.e. PRIME Minister must negotiate with a ‘junior’ cabinet Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The unionists are operating on the whipped dog principal. The more you whip it, or in this case ignore it’s existence, the more it crawls after you to seek your recognition and affection.

Oh Dear. Major faux pas. Not only are they upsetting Scotland’s Catholics again, they are insulting Scotland’s Cardinal who just happens to be the most senior Catholic in the UK.

The good Baroness clearly sees herself as the new Thatcher, in which case we must be sure to send her numerous invitations to come and speak in Scotland that we might all bathe in her vast fountains of wisdom.

VOTE YES
 
 
#
Jimbo
2012-02-16 11:23

Hi BH,

Quote:

The unionists are operating on the whipped dog principal. The more you whip it, or in this case ignore it’s existence, the more it crawls after you to seek your recognition and affection.



Yes, I think you’re right. The Cardinal was probably excluded purposely on the arrogant assumption that the Scots need to be constantly reminded that they are too small to participate in matters international or of any import.

 

 
#
Angus
2012-02-15 22:01

Seems like a case of political incorrectness.
What bothered me was the Papal visit to Scotland and the moderator of the Church of Scotland was shut out, leaving the Queen and some English Bishops to dominate the show.
 
 
#
Auld Bob
2012-02-15 22:40

Well it sure is not an effort to find a deep sea port for the Nuclear Submarines.
 

 
#
Hirta
2012-02-15 22:01

 
 
#
amfraeembro
2012-02-15 22:08

The reason being that they know it’s not their oil, hence their burning it up as fast as possible.
 
 
#
mato21
2012-02-15 22:10

And weary Wullie is again given a platform to let us ken how we are better off being subservient
 
 
#
call me dave
2012-02-15 22:25

Quoting mato21:

And weary Wullie is again given a platform to let us ken how we are better off being subservient



Aye!
——————
“Scotland’s global economic impact came as being a strong part of the UK”.

“Far from giving Scotland more influence over the global economy, splitting Scotland from the UK would give us less.”
—————————————–


Do you think that this fits in with his ‘Home Rule’ stuff.

OH! Whatever happened to the Lib/Dum think tank about home rule?

It’s time they were all rooted out and some decent folk with real principles started standing for the Lib/Dums.

Alexander’s bus for Rennie!

 
 
#
mato21
2012-02-15 22:36

Franks’ the wan wi the bus ( we helped to keep on the road) so we might as well get something for our money There will be room for Alexander on the bus as well

The brief was given to dreary auld Ming he’s probably forgotten what he was meant to be doing about it
 
 
#
Jiggsbro
2012-02-15 22:41

“Far from giving Scotland more influence over the global economy, splitting Scotland from the UK would give us less.”

I don’t want influence over the global economy. I want influence over the Scottish economy.

If any politician thinks the UK can influence the global economy, could they try influencing it out of the shit? Thanks.
 

 
#
Robabody
2012-02-15 22:50

No, no Mato21, Wullie is the (respected) name we Scots refer to guys with the name of William. For example my grandfather, a well respected joiner, was always referred to as Wullie, even at his funeral. When William Rennie was in Westmonster he would be referred to as “Willie” even the uncle toms would have called him that. So the correct term is “weary Willie”…. a much more graphic description don’t you think?

PS apologies for being pedantic…but you’ll agree that when pinning the tail to a donkey it is important that you know the donkey’s proper name.
 
 
#
mato21
2012-02-15 23:05

Roba

I beg your pardon

I agree we must get things right and be above reproach

I wouldn’t like to miss the ass with the pin (not his anyway)
 
 
#
Barontorc
2012-02-16 00:39

Aye, an dinnae forget a’ Scotland’s favourite “OOR WULLIE” an his bucket!

Whereas, here we’ve an imposter for a politician, a richt wearie Willie indeed, who should be jammed into a bucket and never heard of again!
 

 
#
oldnat
2012-02-15 23:01

From that BBC report

“Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie said Scotland’s global economic impact came as being a strong part of the UK.

He added: “Far from giving Scotland more influence over the global economy, splitting Scotland from the UK would give us less.”


I find it embarrassing that the leader of any party in Scotland is quite so incompetent. God knows how the LDs feel

Presumably Rennie thinks that the Isle of Bute has “more influence over the global economy” because it is part of the UK,
 
 
#
Jimmy The Pict
2012-02-16 10:27

Let’s look at the two people in this BBC article and judge who is best placed to speak on oil

Ken Macintosh – History Graduate, career as a television producer

Alex Salmond – Joint History and Economics degree (plus visiting Professor of Economics at Strathclyde University), career Economist (also created the RBS / BBC oil index).

I know who I would go to for advice on the future oil revenue in the seas around Scotland.
 

 
#
alicmurray
2012-02-15 22:08

You could not make this stuff up. First Rangers going into liquidation and in the same week snubbing Catholics. I’m looking forward to seeing which part of our population is next to be insulted or attacked.
 
 
#
clootie
2012-02-15 22:13

Protocol is protocol regardless of my personal views on all pokey hats – it’s a deliberate snub. Although I cannot understand the need I respect the ranking this religion gives it’s leaders and can well understand their outrage.

Welcome to our world!!!!
 
 
#
Keef
2012-02-15 22:19

Strange turn of events. Especialy when you consider the anti-independence parties are praying frantically for some sort of miricle to save their necks. You’d think Keith would be first on the list. It is, after all, his forte.
 
 
#
Wee-Scamp
2012-02-15 22:34

Rennie is seriously deluded.

Apart from the City of London the UK has almost no economic impact whatsoever. Most of the most “influential” bits of UK industry are foreign owned along with most of the major utilities.
 
 
#
gfaetheblock
2012-02-15 22:40

I am a bit confused here. The ‘question’ in the headline is answered in the text of the article.

Why would there be an expectation that the government should be the one to invite multiple representatives from the church to the Vatican. If the Vatican wanted C. O’Brien there, could they not have called him in themselves?
 
 
#
Jiggsbro
2012-02-15 22:43

I think the question is why you’d invite the 2ic and not the boss.
 
 
#
roboftheburnawn
2012-02-15 22:53

The trip was arranged by the UK Foreign Office, I’m imagining they were’nt invited either but decided to arrange the trip.

So possibly the The Vatican did’nt want any of them there because, if they did, they would have most certainly invited the head of the Catholic Church in the UK – dont you think ?
 
 
#
Barontorc
2012-02-16 00:48

Rob.* – your spot on! Have they absolutely no idea how they are steadily alienating the core voters of Scotland?

A wee bit historical background will no go amiss at this time either.

The Declaration of Arbroath, 6th April, 1320 was sent to no other personage than the Pope, who ratified and endorsed its validity and aims.

I am frankly at a loss trying to understand the monumental blunders this UK Gov are making as the next opportunity presents itself for the SNP Scottish Government to now go to Rome, with the Head of the Catholic Community in the UK, the Scottish Cardinal O’Brian, to con-celebrate this rare historical event with a living document that is about to be invoked.
 

 
#
aseumas
2012-02-15 22:48

Ye ken why ther ower meetin the Pope?. Ther tryin tae get Alex Salmond excomu ecom that thing that happened tae Robert the Bruce
 
 
#
Robabody
2012-02-15 23:03

Steady aseumas, it could be to try and persuade the Vatican to invest in Rangers FC – after all, the cash must flow in to the Vatican coffers irrespective of whether Celtic beat them or not……think of all those sins (and praises to the lord) being paid for!
Sorry guys….just a daft thought from Rob ;-)) don’t twitch the key boards.
 
 
#
Auld Bob
2012-02-15 23:14

Now this is not generally known but the true facts are that the whole of Scotland was excommunicated. A Papal bull was issued that every church in England had to curse the People of Scotland at every service held in England. That is why it is so remarkable that The Declaration of Arbroath had such a dramatic effect. Not only did the Pope lift the ex-communication of Bruce bot of the entire Scottish people. Plus he granted the Scots their claimed right ot the people being Sovereign, The Monarch NOT being sovereign, the people’s right to choose the Monarch and to sack the monarch too. All in all it set the scene for Scottish Independence and the basis for much of Scotland’s legal jurisdiction to this day.
 

 
#
Keef
2012-02-15 22:51

O/T
I wonder why the Wall St. Journal is taking such a huge interest in the affairs of Scotland.
I counted 3 seperate articles on Scotland and it’s economy today.
This one :-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880  404577224831981313426.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
was posted by Ruth Porter (London school of economics) has a couple of well worn myths embeded. Someone should take the time to set the journal straight. Any bidders?
 
 
#
cynicalHighlander
2012-02-15 23:05

Scotland’s Constitution Is Not the Problem: online.wsj.com/…/…
 
 
#
Keef
2012-02-15 23:19

Thanks. That link looks much cleaner.
 

 
#
Hen Broon
2012-02-15 23:34

Quoting Keef:

O/T
I wonder why the Wall St. Journal is taking such a huge interest in the affairs of Scotland.
I counted 3 seperate articles on Scotland and it’s economy today.
This one :-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880  404577224831981313426.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
was posted by Ruth Porter (London school of economics) has a couple of well worn myths embeded. Someone should take the time to set the journal straight. Any bidders?






Hen Broon has opened up on her ;O)))))

 
 
#
Keef
2012-02-16 00:22

Thanks Hen Broon. I can see Ruth now checking the comments franticaly to see how her “inspired article” was recieved.

That should take the wind out her sails and make her look exactly what she is- an ill informed London centric fool.

Oh the embarrassment 🙂
 
 
#
cynicalHighlander
2012-02-16 00:44

Your links aren’t working Hen Broon they keep timing out.
 
 
#
Stevie Cosmic
2012-02-16 10:58

There are some very very interesting figures in that comments section.

_______________      ____________

I am not a Scottish Nationalist but this article is the biggest load of baloney that I’ve read yet about this issue. Rather than rebutting every lie that it propagates lets focus on one part of the ‘Scottish’ economy, it’s 90-95% share of North sea oil and gas. This sector has been widely reported to contribute no more than 11-12billion per year to the UK economy and thus won’t make that much difference to an independent Scotland.

The real figures are more shocking. I enclose an excerpt from a commons debate initiated by the Conservative MP Nicolas Soames in 2011. This is just one thing that Scotland with 5million people (8% of the UK total) gains on independence.

NICHOLAS SOAMES SECURES ADJOURNMENT
DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON NORTH SEA OIL AND GAS

HC 1018-i and -ii.]

“The taxes forecast to be raised from the industry in 2011-12 include some £6 billion in income tax, national insurance contributions and corporation tax paid by the supply chain companies, with an additional £11 billion from taxes on production itself. That amounts to 25% of all the corporation tax received by the Exchequer. The production of indigenous oil and gas improved the balance of payments by £35 billion in 2011, thus halving the trade deficit, and the supply chain added another £5 billion to £6 billion with exports of oilfield goods and services. Incidentally, that is an aspect of the industry that is doing extremely well here and overseas, and it is flying the flag for Britain effectively”.

Also in the same debate the he mentions that this industry employs over 400,000 people in the UK with more than half outside Scotland.

Thus North sea oil and gas (UK export no: 1) and Scotch Whiskey (UK export no: 3) contributes more to the UK economy than the city of London (financial products and insurance) . Combine this with the fact that Scotland will have 55% of Europe’s total oil reserves, 25% of Europes wave power and 25% of Europe’s wind power (all for a nation with less than 1% of Europe’s population) and any suggestions that Scotland will not be financially secure can be viewed as utterly risible (or deliberately mendacious).
_______________      _______________      _____________

Some dodgy figures at the end. I assume by ‘Europe’ the guy means the EU, but still, those figures, from parliament, make for some shocking reading given the lies that have emanated from Westminster over the ‘inconsistency’ in annual North Sea revenues.
 

 
#
edinburgh quine
2012-02-16 12:50

quote from the comments section of the WSJ piece…”having lost a globe-spanning empire doesn’t seem to have done too much harm really, so why should Scotland matter?”
We’re all focusing on what would happen to Scotland and rumpuk after Independence in Europe, but what would happen to the “UK’s” permanent seat at the UN and NATO. Maybe that’s what’s really at the bottom of all this (other than oil of course)
 

 
#
Talorcan
2012-02-15 23:07

With all respect Mr. Kelly, Cardinal O’Brien is NOT the most senior clergyman in Scotland. He may be the most senior Roman Catholic clergyman in Scotland, but the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is our most senior clergyman.
It certainly looks more than odd however that the Cardinal wasn’t invited.
 
 
#
oldnat
2012-02-15 23:22

With all respect Talorcan, Presbyterian ministers aren’t clergy, and among the Roman Catholics in the UK O’Brien is the senior within his church.

If you are going to comment on religious matters, at least get your terminology right.
 
 
#
Legerwood
2012-02-16 02:31

Why are Church of Scotland Ministers not clergy? I thought ‘clergy’ was the term used for any body of ordained ministers in a christian church.

In the RC and CofE it would also include Bishops, deacons etc.
 
 
#
oldnat
2012-02-16 02:43

According to a CoS minister who was one of my school chaplains, “clergy” has a technical meaning concerning the role of a priest as an intermediary between the people and God, as opposed to the Presbyterian understanding of a minister. Although the term clergy is often used in a more general way.

He had a theological degree. I don’t. If he was wrong, then no doubt there is a wider theological debate that could examine how many angels could dance on the head of a Presbyterian minister’s kilt pin.

Forgive me if I don’t wish to take part in such a debate!
 
 
#
Legerwood
2012-02-16 02:53

Not debating just saying because I always took it as a catch-all term for a body of ministers in a church – so I checked the dictionary.

Sorry if that offends.
 
 
#
oldnat
2012-02-16 03:04

No offence at all. I just disliked the original assertion (not by you) that there should be some form of precedence according to which Christian sect people were part of!
 

 
#
sneckedagain
2012-02-15 23:15

It should be taken note of the fact that the Vatican considers Scotland an independent member of the Catholic church. The puzzle is what was Michael Moore doing on what was essentially an English visit to the Vatican.
 
 
#
mato21
2012-02-15 23:18

They need somebody to carry bags and haud open doors

His abilities will be stretched to the limit doing that
 

 
#
wee e
2012-02-15 23:24

Just as well, when you consider what the visit was all about: keeping religion well entwined with the State and with public civil life.

I think we can do without religious organisations of any stripe trying to keep their feet in the door of government – even if it is just putting prayer on the literal agenda of council meetings.

A great idea the Americans had, which they seem to have forgotten, tragically: keep chirch and government (even the unelected baronial arm of government) separate.
 
 
#
manxbhoy
2012-02-15 23:31

O/T looks like there’s going tae be mair fun tomorrow aft in glasgow city chambers. Full council attendence expected!
latest rumours say Matheson is finished…lol
 
 
#
mato21
2012-02-15 23:37

manx

Don’t forget call me Dave is visiting Alex too His courtesy visit FM made fun of that statement
 

 
#
roboftheburnawn
2012-02-15 23:42

When Governments tax the poor ahead of the rich, allow people to be unable to heat their homes, allow the young to have no future, make sure the wealthy get wealthier at the expense of the poor.

What government to date has even started to eradicate this ?

Religious groups are not out for self gain but are their to give a voice to all of the above problems and more.

How would you feel if it was one of the Religious Organisations that swung the YES vote ? . What if, when it comes down to it, we needed just 2% more to swing it – would you rather they butted out ?
 
 
#
uilleam_beag
2012-02-16 06:51

The question about whether or not religious organisations making a contribution to debates on independence/devolution/politics in general is valid should not hinge on the fact that they happen to agree with you.

Traditionally, religious leaders have had considerable influence on public affairs, as the church (of whichever flavour) played a significant and central role in the lives of a large proportion of society. It’s fair to say that simply isn’t the case any longer, and while the laws of inertia dictate that religious heads will continue to voice their thoughts it is time we reconsidered whether they should still be afforded the same degree of prominence, or – frankly – deference. But that ought to be done objectively, based on how much of society they actually represent, not because they could be a handy ally.
 

 
#
Purr
2012-02-15 23:27

So Michael Moore and the Westminster Government are now including the Catholic Church in their respect agenda.
Their ineptitude knows no bounds.
 
 
#
Mad Jock McMad
2012-02-15 23:35

Cardinal O’Brien’s next public homily to his Scottish flock could turn out to be enlightening.

After all the last time we had an independence stushy with England the Scottish Bishop’s and the Pope’s man in Scotland were fully behind it (partly because they had no intention of being controlled by the See of Canterbury). Funny how history repeats itself ….. 🙂
 
 
#
Talorcan
2012-02-15 23:39

Well if I’m wrong I’m wrong, but my dictionary says, regarding Clergy: The body of ordained Ministers, men ordained for the public service of God. For the word Clergyman is says: An ordained Minister. It’s news to me if my Minister isn’t a member of the Clergy, but I’ll check up on that. What about Episcopalians then? They’re not Presbyterians. Will they be happy at Cardinal O’Brien being called ‘The most senior clergyman in Scotland?’ It’s all good fun isn’t it? Actually I couldn’t give a toss for either the Pope in Rome or the Queen in London. Neither of them interest me in the slightest. Independence however, I’m interested in that.
 
 
#
oldnat
2012-02-15 23:49

Wholly agree about independence being the most important thing. Hence any attempt to “rank” ministers/priests from different churches is pointless.

However, the RC Church is hierarchical, and a Cardinal outranks an archbishop – regardless of which part of that church he comes from.
 
 
#
clootie
2012-02-16 00:17

Ma full hoose is nae use then? Diz it beat a flush tae?
 
 
#
oldnat
2012-02-16 00:37

Nae kirk has a full hoose these days.
 
 
#
call me dave
2012-02-16 00:48

Tsk! Clootie!& Old Nat

There is a potential rich vein of humour that can be extracted from this thread.

Best if I do not commit the cardinal sin of upsetting anyone unduly by irreverent comment.

I attend both the chapel and the kirk from time to time as I am friendly with folk in both religious groups.

I’m hedging my bets.

#:)
 
 
#
oldnat
2012-02-16 00:51

Surely Warsi committed the “cardinal sin”?
 
 
#
call me dave
2012-02-16 00:58

Quoting oldnat:

Surely Warsi committed the “cardinal sin”?



Touche!

 
 
#
Barbazenzero
2012-02-16 02:02

Necrophilia with poor old Jaime?
Surely not! en.wikipedia.org/…/Jaime_Sin
 
 
#
mato21
2012-02-16 02:08

Very droll for this time of night
 
 
#
oldnat
2012-02-16 02:12

Good to hear from you again.
 

 
#
Roll_On_2011
2012-02-16 00:19

Isn’t it funny how history repeats itself.

If my memory serves me correctly this is second time that Cardinal O’Brien has rebuked the SoS for Scotland in recent times:

1. The current one.
2. Skeltor in February of last year.

blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/…/…

The Westmidden Raj in Scotland is really beneath contempt and needs to be abolished… Roll_On_2014
 
 
#
RTP
2012-02-16 00:23

O/T
Just heard John McFall saying the SG should take Rangers hand what he means I can’t make out don’t know if he was saying it is AS fault.
 
 
#
J Wil
2012-02-16 00:38

I thought McFall was ranting and it looked like Brewer was having trouble with him too.

He seemed to be saying, put public money into keeping Rangers afloat, like Brown did with the banks.

I think the public will have had enough o’ that gemme!
 
 
#
Alba4Eva
2012-02-16 00:45

I was absolutely dumbfounded RTP by the pash coming from the old fools cake hole.

What he was getting at was, a flapping around attempt (as you rightly guessed), at blaming the Rangers situation on the Scottish Government.

…he was then asked whether he meant ‘effectively’ that; “Rangers would be afforded a financial bail out by the Scottish Government?”… he shrugged the question off and went into waffle mode, repeating that; “No, I’m just saying that, this is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to take Rangers by the hand. “

…he has clearly and completely lost the plot! Sad!
 
 
#
call me dave
2012-02-16 00:52

I heard rangers had signed a new lucrative TV deal with the . . History channel!

Sorry!. .
 
 
#
Barontorc
2012-02-16 01:00

I think he was wanting the Scottish Government to nationalise Rangers!
 

 
#
jafurn
2012-02-16 01:01

Quoting RTP:

O/T
Just heard John McFall saying the SG should take Rangers hand what he means I can’t make out don’t know if he was saying it is AS fault.



Am I the only one who thinks that Mr. Salmond,so far, is the only commentator to have said anything remotely sensible about this whole Rangers thing…..

 
 
#
oldnat
2012-02-16 01:05

No. You aren’t.
 

 
#
J Wil
2012-02-16 00:32

I wonder if the Pope asked Moore where the Cardinal was and why he wasn’t with him.
 
 
#
roboftheburnawn
2012-02-16 00:45

If the RC faith is about 12 % of the population – there will be a further surge towards the YES vote after this
 
 
#
Barontorc
2012-02-16 01:01

Plus 1 more from Cardinal O’Brian!
 
 
#
mato21
2012-02-16 01:10

Plus the extra after call me Dave gives his stronger together speech tomorrow He’ll be fighting with every fibre again

I think his fibres are unravelling
 

 
#
jafurn
2012-02-16 00:51

This was inadvertently posted on the wrong story/thread….see I am getting the jargon.

# jafurn 2012-02-15 19:32
Sounded like more porkies from moore
 
 
#
Bobelix
2012-02-16 01:05

Have you heard the one about the Scotsman washed up on a desert island? He was rescued after 20 years and the ship’s captain noticed that he’d built two churches at the North and the South ends respectively of the island.
“Why did you build two churches?” he asked the castaway.
“Weel, ye see,” replied the Scotsman, pointing to the other end of the island, “Thon wan doon thair’s the wan Ah dinnae gang tae!”
 
 
#
sneckedagain
2012-02-16 01:25

Just about the most intolerant bigotry I register today is that of the athiest and secularist zealots (who, of course, know everything)
 
 
#
oldnat
2012-02-16 01:27

You may have posted that comment on the wrong thread – or even the wrong site.
 
 
#
roboftheburnawn
2012-02-16 01:40

OldNat,

Think Snecked’s frustration, along with mine, is that as soon as a headline appears on NNS to do with Religion, no matter what faith, the same old signatories start to go off on one.

This story is to do with the total disregard by the UK government of inviting a Religious leader to an event in Rome, attended by other Religious leaders and MP’s- based on the fact that he is Scottish and is on the side of Independence,

He could be any leader of the Religious faith but this seems to be disregarded by some, who only want to discuss whether their should be any Religion allowed in our Country
 
 
#
oldnat
2012-02-16 01:52

True of a few, but most posts reflected the political aspects of this crass UK decision.

If NNS has a thread which remotely refers to renewable energy, that is likely to lead to open warfare between zealots on both sides.

It’s hardly dreadful that people can express their opinions, as long as they do it in a manner that isn’t beyond the bounds of robust debate.
 

 
#
Old Smokey
2012-02-16 02:37

Getting back to the story. It really is quite disgraceful that the UK Government snub the leading Roman Catholic Cardinal.
But I am not surprised
When ever the BBC or other media outlets talk about ‘the head of the Catholic Church in Britain’ the go to the default position of quoting / talking to or featuring the Archbishop of Westminster. They ignore the fact that Scotland does have a Cardinal. Its petty to actually make comparisons, but the reality is there. This latest episode just highlights the arrogance of Westminster, in ignoring Scotland’s Cardinal O’Brien.
What is even more breathtaking is the ignorance of Michael Moore, who supposedly represents Scotland in Westminster, or so we are told.
But I think more than causing a snub to Cardinal O’Brien, is the embaressment as well as diplomatic faux pas created for the Vatican in leaving out the Cardinal,as I would expect the vatican would have expected the Cardinal to have been with the visiting party and would probably have been dismayed that he wasnt present. it would have been interesting to have heard the excuses from the UK Government representatives  . I wonder what they mumbled, when asked by the Pope, ‘where is my friend Keith’?
 
 
#
oldnat
2012-02-16 02:47

Alternatively, His Holiness actually understands that the rulers of the UK are actually the rulers of England with pretensions to ruling Scotland.

Some of his predecessors thought the same!
 
 
#
derek
2012-02-16 03:48

Old Smokey, Maybe the Cardinal denied the offer? Scotland is a tolerant nation, instigating a reference too the reformation of the restoration against the treaty of Arbroath is child’s play, Moore is nought but a senseless ass, an arsonist with a large box of matches?
 

 
#
derek
2012-02-16 03:12

I can’t see why Cardinal O’Brien was overlooked for the trip, after all doesn’t Scotland have a 400 year-old priest college in Rome and isn’t the Bonnie Prince entombed within the Vatican?
 
 
#
ds12
2012-02-16 11:10

Like some others here I see the problem as why was Michael Moore there.
As I understand it the Cardinal is the head of the Church in Scotland,there is no head of the Church in the UK.It would appear that for some reason Michael Moore was invited as part of an English delegation to the Vatican.
Now he has to get his story right, if it was in fact a UK delegation then the Cardinal should have been there and if the Archbishop was invited by the UK government then the Cardinal should have been invited.There is no way the Vatican would not have been aware of the Cardinal and not invited him if that was what was happening.
Moore has been caught telling porkies.
 
 
#
nachtmusak
2012-02-16 11:14

This decision of the UK Foreign Office is consistent with UK Governments automatically excluding Scottish Ministers and experts from UK delegations to the EU or other international forums.I’m sure the Foreign Office knows a Cardinal outranks an Archbishop.Ah,but he’s an Archbishop based in London.That makes him second only to the Pope!
 
 
#
the wallace
2012-02-16 11:31

Hopefully our good prince o the church will remember this slite oan scotland,and remind his flock o it n where it came fae when the time comes.
 
 
#
Barontorc
2012-02-16 12:17

Wholly on topic – It appears there could be a slash and burn policy being adopted by the English/UK Government against British Labour.

There have been so many gaffes coming from Westminster’s finest to fuel the Scottish Government’s agenda for independence and with that, the effect will see Labour in Scotland decimated and disappear off the political radar.

With that happening, Labour in Britain’s block vote power base goes oot the windae! Labour no more!

It’s not out of the question and this latest scam to alienate Scotland’s catholic voting block of 12-13 % against the English/UK, will do nothing surer than push them towards the SNP.

Of course, this all presumes that Call Me Dave and his bunch, believe there will be no Scottish independence; Scotland’s tucked away for another generation at least and Labour is left wallowing in an irreversible mess, never to recover.

Even if there is their unthinkable nightmare of independence – they’ll have taken Labour out for good in England.

Fairy Tales? _ I don’t entirely think so!
 
 
#
Seagetagrip
2012-02-16 12:44

Interestingly, living for the winter in the Pyrenees I discovered that religious teaching is not allowed in French state schools. It is accepted that the proper place for such teachings is in the home. I mention this only out of interest and not because I agree with them. I am not sure I disagree either!
 
 
#
Harry.Shanks
2012-02-16 13:09

Quoting call me dave:

…It’s a plain and simple snub by ‘call me Dave’s political cleek’….



You mean “clique” – a “cleek” is a tool I used to rake middens with when I was an inquisitive wean.

Oh wait a minute – you might be right enough!!

 
 
#
call me dave
2012-02-16 14:41

Quoting Harry.Shanks:

Quoting call me dave:

…It’s a plain and simple snub by ‘call me Dave’s political cleek’….



You mean “clique” – a “cleek” is a tool I used to rake middens with when I was an inquisitive wean.

Oh wait a minute – you might be right enough!!



Thanks for that Harry.
It sounded right when I wrote it although it looked strange I must admit.

Golf club flitted through my mind at the time too!
#:)
Clique

 
 
#
mato21
2012-02-16 17:09

CMD

Did you no run the streets with your girr and cleek as well
 
 
#
call me dave
2012-02-16 18:51

Quoting mato21:

CMD

Did you no run the streets with your girr and cleek as well








Aye (it’s all coming out now)
I called it a gird with a permanent wee circular link onto a handle.
Said uncle in the Burntisland shipyard (see above) made one for me and one for my brother with our names stamped on too!

My mother used to ‘speak proper’ and was always directing me away from the Scots words! Miners rows to pre-fabs and then a nice 3 bedroomed hoose!
Then off to fly on my own!

great times

 
 
#
mato21
2012-02-16 19:11

CMD
How priviledged you were We lived in a home with no gas elec’ or inside water.Well outside for water oil lamps dry toilet outside and cooking done with pots on sways over an open fire Stone floors At that time there were 8 of us in a room and kitchen Oh happy days

Even our girrs were poorer no ring to hold the cleek
 
 
#
call me dave
2012-02-16 21:03

We need another social thread on here for a communal blether.

Could call it the ‘The darkened room’

LOL
#:)
 

 
#
J Wil
2012-02-17 01:40

A cleek? Something you use with a gir.
 

 
#
Dundonian West
2012-02-16 15:37

Scottish Secretary MOORE INVITED AS SYMBOL OF A UNITED KINGDOM.(Scotland et al)
OUR SCOTTISH CARDINAL NOT INVITED—-BEGGARS BELIEF.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols,(Englan  d)should immediately phoned ‘whoever’ to point this out.
It’s a sign of just what the English Establishment thinks.
 
 
#
mato21
2012-02-16 16:06

Short visit saw Moore going into the call me Dave meeting with the FM
 
 
#
Hamish100
2012-02-16 16:55

What is Michael Moores role in this trip to Rome?

As the SoS for Scotland job is actually part time maybe he was invited for his other job- sooker up to the tories!
 
 
#
J Wil
2012-02-16 18:09

…and what was Jim Murphy’s role in his trip to Rome?

It looks more like a personal pilgrimage in both cases.
 

 
#
Blanco
2012-02-16 20:54

I find it hard to get outraged on behalf of the cardinal over this supposed snub. I am sure he has already met the pope a number of times and the pope is aware of his views. A tete a tete is much more effective than an audience in the company of the likes of Michael Moore.
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.