07/08/2013 Newsnight Scotland

action not words, and consensus is easily a thing from politicians.

Good evening. We are talking war around religion. Next year we

remember the sacrifices from the great War, but some say we should

remember the pacifists and socialists that opposed the

conflict. We will be reflecting on the role of organised religion and

Scottish public life. 2014, isn't just about how you will

vote in the independence referendum, it's also about how you will

remember. That is, how you will remember the centenary of the

outbreak of the First World War. The Scottish government has its own

advisory panel, but an Alternative Commemoration Committee has been set

up under the auspices of the left-leaning Jimmy Reid Foundation.

It has concerns about the nature of the commemorations and today it

called for a plaque to mark pacifists, socialists and others who

opposed the war. Andrew Black reports.

The human toll of the great War is something we are not ever likely to

forget. Total casualties of more than 30 million people made it one

of the world's bloodiest conflicts. As the 11th hour of the 11th day of

the 11th month approaches, we gather to make our acts of remembrance.

Every year, those who died are remembered up and down the country.

For many, the event itself was regarded as a victory over an enemy.

To others, and unnecessary conflict which laid the foundations for the

Second World War. Ahead of the centenary, the first minister

announced a series of commemoration events. As well as marking the

beginning and end of the war, there is the anniversary of the Battle of

Lewes. It was the largest British offensive mounted on a Western front

and half the casualties were Scottish. Countless towns and

villages paid a heavy price and here in Lanarkshire, it was no different.

This memorial stands as a permanent tribute to those who gave their

lives for their country. What about those who opposed the outbreak of

war? As the centenary approaches, the left-wing think tank Jimmy Reid

Foundation has asked Glasgow City Council to elect a plaque to

commemorate those who spoke out against it. The government has

decided to spend �50 million commemorating an appalling and

disastrous war. We want to make sure the true story is told and does not

become glamorised. We thought it was important to get a recognition of

the people who had the foresight and courage to oppose this war, and the

many outstanding figures in Glasgow particularly in the labour movement

but also liberals, who fought against the war right through the

period. Among the historical Glasgow figures the commemoration says are

worthy of recognition are merely barber, one of the city's first

female magistrates. John Wheatley, the former miner turned politician

who fought against military conscription. Is this in danger of

insulting the memory of the war dead? There will be many people

expressing genuine compassion for the appalling suffering, but what we

have to question as was the war necessary? Was the sacrifice of

those millions of young men necessary and what did achieve?

of the commemoration events is likely to be held at Glasgow

Cathedral. Both the Scottish and UK governments say these kind of events

are in no sense a commemoration -- a celebration but a commemoration of a

devastating conflict. Will we eventually see a permanent tribute

for those who were against? I'm joined now here in Glasgow by

Professor Neil Davidson of Strathclyde University, who's a

member of the alternative commemoration committee, who were

calling for the Glasgow plaque. And in Edinburgh is Magnus Linklater,

who's a member of the Scottish Government's panel for the First

World War commemorations. Presumably the main point is that should not be

a plaque for those who opposed, but the whole thing should be

commemorated in a different way from the official proposals? It is the

complexity of the issue. We do not think it will be an open celebration

of militarism. The reason why the war was fought in the first place,

and it is difficult to do that in an equal weight. The Cameron government

is spending a lot of money on this and I would be very surprised they

would argue for a certain kind of notion of Britishness, tied up with

what appeals. We think that has to be raised. There's the notion of

sacrifice. Respecting the sacrifice and the people who died. It can

become a way of justifying war. In some ways, the first worldwide as

contemporary whoppers and a lot of the shape of the world comes out of

it. -- contemporary with us. Do you agree with that? I do not actually

disagree with any of that at all. There has been a lot of debate as to

whether the outbreak of such a terrible war should be commemorated

at all. Should it be marked and if it says how should it be done?

Everybody agrees it has an opportunity for looking hard at why

the war happened in the first place and what might have been done to

prevent it, whether they are lessons to be learned. Is there anything

planned for the official celebrations that will do that?

whole point of having a panel is to look at the various aspects of the

war and the reasons for it and to try to get more people involved in

looking at that his study and understanding it. There is nothing

triumphalist about it at all. The opposition to the ward is a very

important part the story. What did you mean when you said, you are

trying to make a point about the politics of the referendum...?

Jimmy Reid Foundation does not have a position on independence but we

are concerned about presenting notions of Britishness and

Scottishness which tie and very much with Britain's militarily and

imperial past. I suspect some of this will be used generally by the

government as a way of intervening in directly in the referendum. In

what way? They are a number of ways you can present Britishness and

Scotland's role in it. One way is the Labour movement. I suspect it

will be more about the sacrifice and the sheer struggle in Europe. That

feeds into a notion of were Scotland fits into Britain which I think is

the reactionary and very suspect. They've is very charged debate when

people talk about what Scottishness means. I do not think that can be

avoided by not talking about it. This has to be brought into the

discussion and for many people it has an imperialist war. I am

encouraged that he is saying this is part of the debate. Hang on, let's

get him another chance. Are you worried that this could become

politically charged? I do not think so. We have not in our discussions

held any question of that at all. I know Alex Salmond is keen that it is

properly commemorated and rewrites tones should be struck. I do not

think you can avoid the issue that a huge number of Scots enlisted at the

outbreak of war. The total is nearly 700,000 which is enormous. That

included my father who enlisted in 1917, and that is after three years

of war were presumably the ports of the casualties were getting back.

People were still in listing with huge enthusiasm in Scottish

battalions, under a British flag. You can make something political of

that but I have not heard any of that really in the discussion so

far. Are you worrying unnecessarily? Is there a danger of glorifying

militarism? I remember when the film O what a lovely War came out and it

was about the nature of the way the film was made rather than because

anyone objectives to saying the First World War was a disaster.

There has been an argument revived recently that it was the fault of

Germany. There was an argument that was in the Guardian that essentially

said this. It isn't an argument that has gone away. But it is an argument

rather than an overwhelming view. It is not the way most people would

view it. I hope not that there was an argument about Europe as well.

There is a way in which the arguments can be focused and become

politics. Thank you both very much indeed. Does sectarianism still

dominate Scottish social and political behaviour, and is there

reason to believe it's got worse since devolution? A book's just been

published on these themes, arguing that Scotland is troubled

particularly by the retreat of organised religion, from public

life, since there has been no alternative ethical guide to replace

it. Professor Tom Gallaher is sceptical about Scottish home rule

and criticises the Scottish Parliament for what he sees as a

failure in its short life to reflect the ethical views of the people of

Scotland. His book explores the history of sectarianism and argues

that the Roman Catholic Church has been marginalised and ignored in a

view towards a secular society. He reckons that as a bad thing. He

examines the way the Scottish Parliament has dealt with some

issues, from the section 28 debate to the recent decision to legislate

for same-sex marriage. He mentions the case of the Catholic midwives

who did not wish to participate professionally in supervising, and

the case of the Catholic Fire man who didn't wish to participate in

March. He criticises the monolithic nature of Scottish discourse.

Basically, the liberal consensus rules in the liberal elite. He says

175 MPs opposed the same-sex rule. In Holyrood it was a handful. The

professor fears that Catholic education is in danger and lists

some significant public figures, including people from Labour and the

Liberal Democrats, who have given voice to the idea that education is

part of the idea of sectarianism in wider society. Professor Tom

Gallagher joins me now from Edinburgh. I read some of your book

and I think I understood the problem about liberal democracies and giving

people more guidance on how to live. I didn't understand why you think

the problem is worse in Scotland than it is in England. England is a

big country and you have different perspectives vying for influence.

The position, unfortunate, is different in Scotland. It is a small

and managed country. You have a series of ideologies that have

prevailed. You have a Presbyterian one after the Scottish Reformation,

and you have a hard-nosed Catholic one. You do have a moralising

liberal agenda where a lot of people believe that they are improving the

quality of life for everyone in Scotland is, and that anyone who

disagrees with this is a bit flaky, maybe like me! To give you an

example, you have a debate on the same-sex marriage. There was a large

number of MPs in Westminster, in the House of Commons, who voted against

it but hardly any did in Scotland, is that the sort of thing? That is

the perfect analogy. The idea that you have to do assemble behind the

orthodoxy of the moment, rather than having a really deep... Alex Salmond

would say, hang on, I would have two fend off a campaign led by one of my

predecessors, so I did have problems and I did have to take on the

opposition to get this through. Okay, it might be because Labour and

the SNP have similar views on this. I don't think Alex Salmond had any

sleepless nights over this. Very few are troubled by the arrival of

same-sex marriage. I mean, it is remarkable because the call when

devolution came was not to be like the stuffy Parliament. You had a

thousand voices expressing themselves. When these major issues,

along then there is nobody breaking the party line. What is the other

side of this? Incidentally, just on this, are you saying that you are

against same-sex marriage? Or are you saying that you regret the fact

that there is not a broad-based debate on it? I am a gay man myself

and I have been in a long-term relationship. It does not do

anything for me. Gay people regard this as a quango driven... I am

sorry to jump in, but I want to hear the other side of this. Are you

suggesting that we have to find some way of bringing religion back into

public life? That is the bit I did not understand. The obvious remark

on reading it is that Scotland is a secular society. You can like or

dislike that but that is the way it is. I would like to see in achieving

a Deas is moving into the community -- at atheism. Christianity did this

over a long period and made Scotland a more humane place. They also went

out into the place with the missionary efforts, particularly

with the Church of Scotland. So far, I don't think the humanist and

secular people, who are in the driving seat, have equalled or

surpassed what Christianity did in cleaning up some of the suffering or

abuses in society. Thank you for coming in. The Scotsman leads with

the comments of Mark Carney. The Daily Mail talks about drinkers'