It’s a subject you seldom hear about despite it seeming to be a fairly obvious influencing factor in Scotland’s society. Every action has a reaction somewhere and to some degree everything is linked and relevant. Yet it doesn’t get discussed or analysed, certainly not in the press today, and when it does the issue is often hazy, agenda-led and laden with tired and hollow soundbites.

Sectarianism, tensions and distrust have been fairly rife in Scotland for centuries and occasionally politicians pick it up to make some mileage out of it. Such it was in 2011, with a tenuous hook into football, that summits were being held to decide just how terrible some of us Scots are. Amidst this grand-standing a conservative politician stood up and mistaking the furore for a genuine, grown up discussion mentioned faith schooling, which in 21^st century Scotland mostly refers to Catholic schooling. Cue much gnashing of teeth and spraying of venom as his well-meaning input was shouted down and with that the discussion closed down. It was pretty embarrassing stuff to be honest.

Radio presenter Jim Delahunt recently tweeted on the back of rather nervously nave comment from Labours Andy Kerr about someone crossing themselves in his audience (quite how Kerr thought the comment would be well received seems to be a gross misjudgement).

“Amazing lack of condemnation from “high” places re. Kerr sign of the cross comment at Labour conference. Apology? That’s fine then? My mum’s dad turned up every morning at Ardrossan shipyard and was only allowed a shift if Protestants couldn’t fill the jobs. Nothing has changed.”

It would be fair to say that Kerr did receive considerable coverage and pretty much universal commendation. Delahunt associated the faux pas to his family’s experiences, which is fair enough if slightly hyperbolic (added to that the situation would have arose well over half a century ago). The inference is his Grandad was affected by religious discrimination. It is a not uncommon situation where a group of guys who know each other, work together and keep work for themselves. There is undoubtedly a tribal aspect to that but we can only speculate what combination of religion, accent, familiarity or experience was the driver for the incident. Delahunt certainly considers it be religion. Regardless, given the characters and the context of West of Scotland it will get classed as sectarian i.e. an action in a professional capacity where one party is discriminated against. Fair enough.

If we accept this happens and how easily it happens then we must accept it goes both ways. I tweeted back that I agree that it still exists and is not just one way. Asked for examples I gave the following tweet…

“Construction crews, contracts. Jobs for mates. Glasgow public sector. City chambers. The media appears to be slanted and in some areas exclusive. As does politics. We’ll not mention segregated schools.”

I consider these to be valid examples – most I know to be true from personal experience or consider to be true from repeated reasoned observation. The one item that got most kick back was the schools.

Taking Delahunt’s example then we are talking about society or groups being divided by religion. We are then talking about this divide manifesting itself in various situations and we’ll refer to this as sectarianism. As we are told, if Scotland has a problem with sectarianism then it makes sense to understand the how and the why and with all problems there should be solutions. For relevance to Delahunt’s tweet denominated schools (which in Scotland is effectively just Catholic schools) are one of the few examples of discrimination actually legally permitted in Scotland today. Teaching positions have religious requirements and, likewise, preference is given to children of the denominated faith. The “school” question wasn’t actually the direction I’d intended any discussion to take; however, it was the part that got traction.

My stance on the situation is that secularism is a valid solution and a positive way forward. My primary school was across the road from a RC primary school. At break time you would see kids the same age in their playground and the physical divide was something most kids would be aware of on some level. I played boys football with some of them so they were some familiar faces there and yet society, or this particular arrangement in society, was telling us we were different.

I’m not particularly a fan of organised religion anyway and never have been. On some level there is some use and good in it, of course, and in the right time and place there are even very strong benefits to it. But for me there exists an intrinsic deceit and cynical authority behind it. Ultimately it is 100% man-made yet claims it isn’t, it claims it is more than that and I cannot see past that hypocrisy.

Regardless of what I might think or hope organised religion does exist. And people pass their time with it, take comfort in it and even enjoy it. I don’t begrudge them that, it’s just not for me. At least not in the forms that exist just now.

Where I object more strongly is with religion encroaches on schooling. Especially when that encroachment demands the physical separation of children. Children are told to stand in separate lines under different branding and no matter what people might claim this has a lasting impression on kids. The branding, the separation and with it the inherent lack of religious diversity amongst their peers. These are friendships and links that often last for life-times. And that is the point, it is fully intended to be that way! Religion understands that young minds are impressionable and that a lot of what a young child is taught stays with them – be it habits, good, bad, right, wrong, dangers, skills, language or what tribe they are in. It is a science. The human brain is programmable. Neural connections are made it is difficult if not impossible to reprogram them. In short, it can be viewed as a form of captive aggressive conditioning and brand marketing. It’s a very strong tool and through the hapless accidents of history it is the current status quo for denominational schools in Scotland. No wonder they are happy to retain and fight for it.

In recent years there was a discussion on children’s exposure to certain brands in the school environment. Let’s say McDonalds or Coca-Cola were to sponsor a school. The positives would be extra money to improve facilities and learning potential. The negative were that parents understood it was blatant marketing directed at the vulnerable. The parents decided that this negative outweighed the benefits. After all, who wants a powerful multinational getting its hooks into their children?

As a challenge to my point of view I put out the question – what was the need in Scotland 2018 for schools to exist? I didn’t receive a single convincing reason or reply.

Now it is not necessarily unusual that customs or traditions exist which no longer have a good explanation. Or if they didn’t exist then nobody would dream of inventing them or today’s society or norms wouldn’t allow you to build them. People, places and views all change and the ground that originally held up a concept can be eroded away over time. Of course, that’s no reason to ditch everything archaic or quaint, much of which may be harmless or positive. However, when the negatives start to weigh heavier then sometimes it is ok to consign things to the past.

Upon twitter the ire and indignation followed a few common themes. I’ll list these along with some comment on them.

Do you know why they exist in the first place? The inference here is that Catholics weren’t allowed into Protestant schools. That is true to an extent, if very simplistic, and I dare say 1850s would have been a pretty grim time and place for some – there would be tensions and some pretty clear divisions on top of a daily struggle to survive in some desperate conditions. However, it needs context. It needs to be stressed that life and society in many sectors would be unrecognisable to where things are today and within that are the government and services, including the schooling system, which would’ve been markedly different. So the then and now comparisons are not really accurate, suitable or helpful. There’s many aspects to all of this and it can be spun to suit many agendas.

Schools back then were more of a community project than anything governmental and often donations and volunteers would be relied upon to fulfil the needs of establishing or running any school. Obviously the churches would typically be the focal point for many communities and these would be the main theme or constant across the nation – in presence if not in coherence, since churches varied between regions. The churches would have a lot more hold over their flock than modern days and Scottish society has thankfully drifted gradually into secularism over the past century.  So church-led schools would be the norm. Glasgow itself was expanding rapidly and basic facilities, let alone schooling, never existed to service the large number of incomers.

In the 1870s the government started to take steps to standardized schools across the country. This made sense on many levels from curriculum, testing, standards and an attempt to ensure education for all. The plan was to include all schools, and therefore, all children across Scotland is this set-up and the Catholic Church rejected this opportunity. An olive branch for integration was pushed aside. The feeling was the Church of Scotland would gain from it and they would lose out and so the Catholic Church rejected the proposal to integrate as it was.

This was only to change in 1918 when finances forced the hand of the Catholic Church. From there the Education Act for Scotland 1918 was signed and denominational schools were included. The Catholic Church got a good deal out of it and got many concessions that others had forfeited previously to be part of nationwide progress. Teachers and buildings and costs were now paid for by the state and the denomination got to hold certain aspects of control as well as the banner under which its schools would operate.

There’s not a problem in other places? The examples given are faith schools in England or Holland and elsewhere. Not living there I don’t know if it’s an issue or not for people in those places. There are clearly points here on demographics and the general make up of those societies. Again, there is a science to the integration of humans – the number of different cultures merging is a factor and the size of those components is a factor. Most importantly, the history of the components is a factor and this is where Scotland is its own animal. There is a fairly well documented and established clash between Catholics and Protestants in Scotland for centuries. It cannot be ignored or removed from the equation. Added to this is that fact a lot of the Catholic stock emigrated from Ireland (as did a lot of Protestants) so we have another potent layer on top of any religious divide.

You’re attacking the victim! The point being made here is that should a sectarian incident occur (against a Catholic for instance) then it’s wrong to seek to invoke any changes or guilt on part of that community, since they weren’t the aggressor in that incident. As a reflex that’s a sound enough point. However, considering the bigger picture and what we are ultimately talking about – division in society – then I consider a secular option to be best for Scotland and a relevant response to any sectarian incident. No-one is saying there’s a problem with any individual kids or families choosing denominational schooling, the problem is the system itself.

The orange order and their marches are the bigots. This again ties into Scotland’s unique environment – beyond the simplified religious banners there are other cultural issues at play here. There is distrust and ignorance on all sides. Rumours and whispers based on this distrust and ignorance cascade and reverberate down through generations. So from this heavy cultural sentiment and the investment of time and energy from a lot of people we see an unapologetic stubbornness on both sides.

Scotland refuses to tackle this wider subject sensibly. Holyrood refuses to discuss where we are and how we got here and as we have seen any debate is shut down by those with a vested interest in the status quo. There is a lot of out-dated and unhelpful baggage attributable to all sides and there is a lot of people digging their heels in and throwing grenades from their trenches. On one hand people are claiming that there is a problem and yet on the other hand are closing down any attempts at improving the situation.

One reason to keep schools was given as it’s the law so it is allowed, it is a right. There is no small irony in this being the same line others use to justify marches. One question I should have put forward is whether Scotland should have dedicated Orange Order schools? I’m guessing the response wouldn’t have been as progressive or accepting.

Looking into the future and Scotland’s place in the world it is highly possible that very high numbers of people will come to this country at some point. Do we want them schooled separately under the banner of other religions? This rather obviously stalls integration between host and incomers.

A buzzword that is commonly used by certain politicians when shutting down the debate on secular schooling is that faith schools provide diversity for Scotland. This is disingenuous in many ways. The Catholic Church in Scotland has been famous for keeping a fairly tight lease on the politics and voting habits of its flock – a compliant voting bloc that gives the community and Church a bigger stick to impart leverage with and control of the schools certainly helps this process. It is hardly diversity as the strategic aim of the faith schools is to have as many of the pupils as possible leave the machine wearing the same hats and thinking the same thoughts. The politicians defending them so vigorously are no doubt signally to that block that their vote is good with them and some parties have been successful with that strategy in recent years.

So parents raised within Scotland’s mildly toxic society put their children through the same flawed systems; therefore, it is not hard to see how things might not change and how patterns will repeat. If kids do not get the chance to mix with and befriend their cultural opposites, to learn of and get first hand exposure to different outlooks or cultures, then things won’t change in a hurry. It should be about a bigger picture and a longer term goal of integration. That is surely the duty of a nation – to have people moving forward together. In my opinion clinging on to faith schools is a refusal to tear down out-dated dividing walls and indeed the continued existence of separate schooling actively shores up the walls.

As a point of mitigation it has been pointed out that faith schools accept children of all faiths. This is mostly due to government insistence as a nod to integration. The problem here is that those kids of other faiths have to school under the banner of the Catholic Church. As mentioned before, this is free marketing for the Church paid for from the public purse. There is also no lack of hypocrisy in the claim of inclusivity as one of the key reasons for the CCoS rejecting integration in 1870s as it did not want its flock taught under the banner of others. Either it’s a problem or its not, surely? This is very much a case of you’re welcome to integrate on our terms but we’ll not integrate on your terms, or in other words we’ll have our cake and eat it.

There are other components at play that society shouldn’t necessarily or knowingly be welcoming. The Catholic banner brings Catholic people from across the Europe and beyond into a machine run primarily by Scotland’s Irish-identity Catholics and as well as picking up on the Catholic indoctrination they also pick up the other cultural habits that Scotland should really be leaving behind. As an example you would have kids of Italian or Polish stock picking a dog in the Irish troubles fight – a by-product of a system of division where the divide is along more than purely religious lines. I’m not sure this is helping anyone. But then maybe it is that simple – anything for my side I approve of and anything against it then I’ll resist.

To finish up this isn’t a restriction of anybody rights or a call to abolish religion in Scotland. The parents and the church leaders would be able to impress their views and politics on their kids any which way they choose – just not in state funded schools. No schools would have religious influence. Surely any faith of sufficient conviction would have the confidence and resilience to exist and endure without state funded machinery?

Another factor in the equation are the high-profile moral and criminal issues relating to the Catholic Church worldwide, and its handling of those, which should raise the valid stand-alone question of whether it is a suitable patron of schools in Scotland?

I’d wager that if you were to put the question of a fully secular schooling system for Scotland to a vote tomorrow then the result would be pretty resounding.