A History of Scotland

Forums New posts
gun ainm

gun ainm

Bounce Flag Co-Owner
Private Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2002
Really enjoyed this last night - the focus was on the covenanters who i must admit I knew very little about beforehand - I do remember walks in galloway as a kid and seeing their hideout caves and the like and hearing tales of summary execution but we never touched on this fascinating period of scottish history at school (or not that I remember anyway) :sadwalk:

quite a complex bunch of people - totally fanatical I found myself both attracted and repelled by them.
 
gun ainm said:
Really enjoyed this last night - the focus was on the covenanters who i must admit I knew very little about beforehand - I do remember walks in galloway as a kid and seeing their hideout caves and the like and hearing tales of summary execution but we never touched on this fascinating period of scottish history at school (or not that I remember anyway) :sadwalk:

quite a complex bunch of people - totally fanatical I found myself both attracted and repelled by them.
Click to expand...

Feck,didnt know it was on,anybody know if its repeated?
 
Watched the start of it. My knowledge of the Covenanters was mostly based on drinking in the pub on the High Street which had about 20 words on their menu about them. So I don't think it was included in the school curriculum.
 
gun ainm said:
Really enjoyed this last night - the focus was on the covenanters who i must admit I knew very little about beforehand - I do remember walks in galloway as a kid and seeing their hideout caves and the like and hearing tales of summary execution but we never touched on this fascinating period of scottish history at school (or not that I remember anyway) :sadwalk:

quite a complex bunch of people - totally fanatical I found myself both attracted and repelled by them.
Click to expand...

I recorded it but nit watched it yet and am looking forward to it.
 
I think I recorded it, I hope I did. I saw the trailer and there was a bloke with a long beard staring into the distance. I think that was my mate Angus the Beard but I won't know until I see the prog.
 
cowiecabbage said:
Feck,didnt know it was on,anybody know if its repeated?
Click to expand...

gun ainm said:
Really enjoyed this last night - the focus was on the covenanters who i must admit I knew very little about beforehand - I do remember walks in galloway as a kid and seeing their hideout caves and the like and hearing tales of summary execution but we never touched on this fascinating period of scottish history at school (or not that I remember anyway) :sadwalk:

quite a complex bunch of people - totally fanatical I found myself both attracted and repelled by them.
Click to expand...

Funny, I consider myself pretty well read in history but really had no idea about the Covenanters, how powerful they were and the sects they split up into. You can see why we still have some extreme types of presbyterianism kicking about until today, they took their worshiping very seriously.
 
Covenanters prison as the southeast end of Greyfriars churchyard where many died, I think. Monument in the Grassmarket.
 
A very good programme but why no mention of the Scottish Civil war between the Royalists and the Convenanters ?

James Graham, Marquis of Montrose never got a single reference, the first signatory on the Covnenant and then the destroyer of the Covenant armies when he stayed loyal to the King.:dunno:
 
sKipper said:
A very good programme but why no mention of the Scottish Civil war between the Royalists and the Convenanters ?

James Graham, Marquis of Montrose never got a single reference, the first signatory on the Covnenant and then the destroyer of the Covenant armies when he stayed loyal to the King.:dunno:
Click to expand...

I can only assume Oliver felt he can only squeeze in so much in an hour. He quite blatantly jumps 2 years, firstly describing Charles' defeat at Marston Moor in the summer of 1644 then on to the spring of 1646 when Charles surrenders to the Scots at Newark.

It is misleading with the inference being the Royalists had their backs to the wall over those two years which was definitely not the case. A history of Scotland that omits a Scottish civil war is strange so say the least.

And you're right, omitted or not, how can you talk about covenanting Scotland without reference to Montrose? Wariston seemed to get all Neil Oliver's headlines.
 
Hampden_Hibby said:
I can only assume Oliver felt he can only squeeze in so much in an hour. He quite blatantly jumps 2 years, firstly describing Charles' defeat at Marston Moor in the summer of 1644 then on to the spring of 1646 when Charles surrenders to the Scots at Newark.

It is misleading with the inference being the Royalists had their backs to the wall over those two years which was definitely not the case. A history of Scotland that omits a Scottish civil war is strange so say the least.

And you're right, omitted or not, how can you talk about covenanting Scotland without reference to Montrose? Wariston seemed to get all Neil Oliver's headlines.
Click to expand...

Perhaps his book on the series will be more in depth, I do intend reading it and I've dropped a couple of hints about it as a Christmas present along with my traditional hint for Jack Daniels!:drinking:
 
were the covenanters scottish puritans or have i got that hopelessly wrong.

Gun Ainm, there was a fascinating one on one morning last week about the anabaptists and the bachannal of munster; remember Q? it was the history behind that, so to speak.
 
egb_hibs said:
were the covenanters scottish puritans
Click to expand...

Aye they were. They believe the Anglican Church hadn't gone far enough. The king had replaced the Pope and nothing else really changed.

They believed man was a durty bastard so to speak and had no right to be God's representative. They made their covenant with God direct (like Abraham) and as Neil Oliver termed it last night, 'King Jesus' was the head of their church.
 
will hopefully cath it on iplayer

neil oliver is in that breed of tv presenters who's pretty clever and passionate and great to listen to but quite punchable at the same time
 
egb_hibs said:
were the covenanters scottish puritans or have i got that hopelessly wrong.
Click to expand...

you could say that - my impression is that they wanted freedom from the hierarchy of the church and the state but only for themselves and to hell with everyone else - i do fancy reading/learning more about them though

egb_hibs said:
Gun Ainm, there was a fascinating one on one morning last week about the anabaptists and the bachannal of munster; remember Q? it was the history behind that, so to speak.
Click to expand...

on the radio - i think i caught the tail end of that but had forgotten - cheers will check the pod casts - i'm tempted by the wu ming's presentation of the sermon to the princes - anyone read it?

51cdYTi6icL._SS500_.jpg
 
gun ainm said:
you could say that - my impression is that they wanted freedom from the hierarchy of the church and the state but only for themselves and to hell with everyone else - i do fancy reading/learning more about them though
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about this, and it seems to me that paradoxically - and this remains the case to the present day - the more liberal and rational you want your religion, the more hierarchical you'll find it is. the merkin zealots are in the most 'egalitarian' churches. as in religion, so in the political ideas that sprung from it. There is something to Qs presentation of catholicism as conservatism, protestantism as liberalism and anabaptism as radicalism; it is meant to be about the 20th century you know :hmmm

as i keep saying; the more 'anarchic' a model you aim for, the more zealous and regulated it needs to be.

on the radio - i think i caught the tail end of that but had forgotten - cheers will check the pod casts - i'm tempted by the wu ming's presentation of the sermon to the princes - anyone read it?

51cdYTi6icL._SS500_.jpg
Click to expand...
melvn bragg's programme... dunno who wu ming is but i like the cover!
 
egb_hibs said:
I've been thinking about this, and it seems to me that paradoxically - and this remains the case to the present day - the more liberal and rational you want your religion, the more hierarchical you'll find it is. the merkin zealots are in the most 'egalitarian' churches. as in religion, so in the political ideas that sprung from it. There is something to Qs presentation of catholicism as conservatism, protestantism as liberalism and anabaptism as radicalism; it is meant to be about the 20th century you know :hmmm

as i keep saying; the more 'anarchic' a model you aim for, the more zealous and regulated it needs to be.

melvn bragg's programme... dunno who wu ming is but i like the cover!
Click to expand...

wu ming is luther blisset - same collective of writers.. since Q they've issued "54" and a new book called "manituana" which i've yet to order but it looks good
 
Hampden_Hibby said:
I think Tom Devine fancies a pop at him too!

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...story-man-and-academic-gets-personal-1.931212
Click to expand...

Oh dear. I find that quite sad. Oliver and Devine should be joining hands to promote Scottish History together as 2 heavyweights not carping at each other like a pair of old sweetie wives.

Neil Oliver for all that you can nitpick his programme is doing a great service to the people of Scotland by bringing their nation's history to the front rooms and Tom Devine is also a marvellous and considered historian. His book "[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scottish-Nation-1700-2000-T-M-Devine/dp/0140230041/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257840367&sr=1-8"]The Scottish Nation[/ame]" is excellent and I'd recommend it to the Bounce.

Please guys stop this nonsense.
 
AndyM said:
Oh dear. I find that quite sad. Oliver and Devine should be joining hands to promote Scottish History together as 2 heavyweights not carping at each other like a pair of old sweetie wives.

Neil Oliver for all that you can nitpick his programme is doing a great service to the people of Scotland by bringing their nation's history to the front rooms and Tom Devine is also a marvellous and considered historian. His book "The Scottish Nation" is excellent and I'd recommend it to the Bounce.

Please guys stop this nonsense.
Click to expand...

very sad indeed - strange that Devine would be offered the gig and turn it down then choose to carp from the sidelines though - if he was that interested in providing a top class programme for the Scottish people he'd have been better off on the advisory panel
 
I agree Oliver is quite definately "punchable" as an earlier poster put it!

I have a sneaking regard for him however in bringing history to the people in this way. Its certainly better than no history.
Devine has written quite a good book the history of Scotland but it aint exactly accessible and why he chooses to be quite so disparaging publicly is strange and not very classy.An academic even excercising intellectual snobbery should be able to do it if he must in a more subtle way.


:lookaround:
 
I find the programme nigh on unwatchable. the content is good, but the presentation style is brutal and the camera work largely horrendous. I know I should be able to get past that, but I just can't.
 
I think this episode was particularly ambiguous and not really that balanced. Scotland can not be seen in isolation but as part of the greater reformation that was happening across Europe. While this resulted in various religious factions it also heralded the advance in Scientific explanantions which had previously been attributed to some kind of Devine intervention (see what I did there). Ony hoo while all these religious factions were getting all hot and bothered about who had the best god and the best way of getting to heaven, the rest of the world was working out how to invent the microwave and zonal marking. The OP got it spot on how he was attracted and repulsed at the same time. Aye well fast forward 400 and odd years and not a lot has really changed. Still folk are arguing about who has the best god blah de blah de blah de fuckity blah. Except there is a wider acceptance of how there are rational explanations of how the world was formed. As for the covenanters religious zealots who epitomised and replicated all that was wrong with the church of Rome. Same delusions just different jerseys.
However this time also saw a rise in republicanism. Ergo put in a mix of religion and anti religion, republicanism and the emergence of enlightenment at roughly the same time makes it almost impossible to explain as adequately as desired. :coffee:
 
gun ainm said:
very sad indeed - strange that Devine would be offered the gig and turn it down then choose to carp from the sidelines though - if he was that interested in providing a top class programme for the Scottish people he'd have been better off on the advisory panel
Click to expand...

Devine is a more serious academic.
 
gun ainm said:
wu ming is luther blisset - same collective of writers.. since Q they've issued "54" and a new book called "manituana" which i've yet to order but it looks good
Click to expand...
aaah! just checked it on amazon, and it's blurb says the authors examine why muntzer has inspired radicals for 500 years; if so, a pity they didn't learn from the mayhem and tyranny his citadel descended into, which has been repeated by so many radicals for 500 years!

edit; oops, but unfair of me there; muntzer never made it to munster now i've checked back!
 
hughieo said:
I agree Oliver is quite definately "punchable" as an earlier poster put it!

I have a sneaking regard for him however in bringing history to the people in this way. Its certainly better than no history.
Devine has written quite a good book the history of Scotland but it aint exactly accessible and why he chooses to be quite so disparaging publicly is strange and not very classy.An academic even excercising intellectual snobbery should be able to do it if he must in a more suble way.


:lookaround:
Click to expand...

Devine and Oliver get all the plum meeja jobs and rentaquote opportunities when it comes to Scottish history so any spat is a bit like Ant and Dec arguing over who gets the most work.

There are loads of Scottish historians whose knowledge and interpretation of history is as good or better.

I'm thinking Tom Nairn, Christopher Harvie, TC Smout, Ted Cowan, James D Young, Louise Oliver, Elspeth King, Fiona Watson and Alasdair Gray to name just a few.

Devine is a fine historian and Oliver is a good presenter but they're the meeja's pet historians which makes their spat all the more ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom