RELIGION has been one of the most powerful forces in European
political history. It has shaped identities and loyalties. It has
influenced political attitudes and values. In modern Europe religiously
based political parties still exist. Elsewhere in Europe, though not in
Scotland, Catholics are likely to vote for parties of the right. So
Scotland is unexceptional in having witnessed a link between politics
and religion. What is unusual is the support Catholics have given to the
Labour Party, on the left, rather than to the Tories on the right.
This is explained not by religion but by immigration. Irish Catholics
came to the West of Scotland during this and the last century in large
numbers. The anti-immigrant sentiment which was fomented by the right
was consequently anti-Catholic. Anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic
sentiment was at its height in the 1920s and 1930s when there were high
levels of unemployment. Like immigrant communities everywhere, Irish
Catholics coming to Scotland suffered discrimination in housing and
employment from the host community as well as being blamed for economic
problems. Patterns of settlement which developed provided the basis for
continued sectarianism.
As the party of the underdog, Labour became the party of the immigrant
community. The Irish Question also polarised support, with Labour more
sympathetic to Irish nationalism and the Tories articulating a staunch
British Unionism.
But religion and sectarianism should not be confused, though some
commentators have. A political party's support may be drawn heavily from
one group but this does not mean it will discriminate against others.
The basis for sectarian politics certainly existed in those areas where
religion was a strong determinant of voting behaviour and the temptation
existed to ''favour your own'' but it does not follow that it occurred.
Over the post-war period sectarianism has declined. The rise of
peripheral housing schemes and new towns disrupted the old communities
based on religion. Employment practices changed, especially in the
nationalised industries, and if sectarian practices occurred they were
more covert. Sectarianism still exists but its social base was weakened
as Scotland modernised. The same process of modernisation which aided
the rise of Scottish nationalism has seen a decline in sectarianism. It
was no surprise to find that the SNP did well in new towns. None the
less, the tendency of Catholics to vote Labour and Protestants to vote
Conservative continues. It is absurd to suggest that this makes either
party, or these voters, sectarian.
The study of the 1992 election conducted at Strathclyde University
shows that sectarianism is weaker than in any previous election surveyed
but the secularisation of Scottish politics has occurred gradually and
affected some areas and communities more than others. Labour and Tory
still draw disproportionately on support from Catholics and Protestants.
SNP support is drawn disproportionately from those belonging to no
religious denomination, as one would expect, and remarkably
proportionately from Catholic and Protestant communities.
So how do we explain Monklands? The social base for sectarianism
exists. Coatbridge is largely Catholic and Airdrie is largely
Protestant. The disruption of old traditional communities which
predominantly consisted of one religious denomination and creation of
mixed communities which has marked much of west-central Scotland in
post-war Scotland has not occurred to anything like the same extent in
Monklands. At least, that is the perception, and perceptions are
important in these matters.
The fact that all Labour councillors are Catholic may be a
coincidence, but it has fuelled the perceptions of bias. Anything likely
to be seen as discriminatory is bound to be seen as sectarian. Until the
by-election, it was relatively easy to sweep these accusations under the
carpet. Almost uniquely in a by-election, the agenda of the local
population dominated debate and forced these issues out into the open.
The by-election only brought these to the surface.
IF the by-election was as seedy and unsavoury as commentators suggest,
then that was because the deep resentment and sense of injustice had
finally found a voice after being suppressed for too long. Brushing a
problem under the carpet does not get rid of it but merely allows it to
fester. The scandal is that no serious attempt was made to deal with
this issue -- whether by refuting the claims of sectarian bias in
spending or ensuring that it was halted. Whether Helen Liddell or Jim
Brooks is correct regarding council spending is less important than that
the perception was left to exist that something is amiss.
But again, it must be stressed that religion and sectarianism should
not be confused. The democratic basis of Presbyterianism and the social
ethics of Catholicism have played a singular part in shaping
contemporary Scottish politics. Far from being at war with each other,
they have complemented each other.
Indeed, at its most influential, religion has been vitally important
as the backdrop against which political attitudes have been formed. Few
would argue that this has been negative. The corruption of the
relationship between religion and politics in the form of sectarianism
is another matter. The lesson from Monklands is simple -- problems left
to fester may erupt in an unsavoury manner.
* James Mitchell of the Department of Government, Strathclyde
University, is the author of Conservatives and the Union.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article