Radical
Statistics
Religion, ethnicity and nation in the Census: some thoughts on the inclusion of Irish ethnicity and Catholic religion
Patricia Walls
Introduction
In Great Britain, a new ethnicity question appeared in the Censuses of 2001 in Scotland and England/Wales and religion questions were introduced for the first time in a century and a half. This paper seeks to address the rationale behind changes to the ethnicity question and the introduction of religion questions. Attention is given to the inclusion of a Catholic religious category in Scotland (not included in England and Wales) and the related implications of an inclusion of a new 'Irish' ethnic category in both parts of Great Britain. It discusses the context in which issues of anti-Catholic discrimination and Catholic disadvantage in Scotland and Irish experience in Britain were integral to debates around the inclusion of these ethnic and religious categories, including the role of research evidence in shaping new official categories. How and why these new data may be used, misused or ignored is considered.
An examination of how these groups became included in the Scottish Census raises issues of the political context of boundary making. How data gathered on now accepted categories will be analysed, and what impact these may have on the communities concerned with regard to policy is discussed, taking the example of current health data on the Irish in Britain. More broadly, it is argued that data on Catholics in Scotland and the Irish ethnic group in Britain present a new challenge to those interested in ethnic/religious inequalities. This is because the data not only helps refocus debates onto excluded groups, but queries the parameters within which current debates on ethnicity have traditionally been constrained.
Religion and ethnicity questions in Censuses of Great Britain 2001
Between 1991 and 2001, the ethnicity questions asked in the Censuses changed in three fundamental ways. In England and Wales, firstly, a 'mixed' category was introduced. This was a recognition that many people have varied ancestry although focusing on racialised 'white' plus 'black' categories. Secondly, the specifically nationalist/ethnic label of British was introduced in recognition of the British identification of many minority ethnic group members (previously 'white' implied British). Thirdly, the white category disaggregated British, Irish and others for the first time. In Scotland, ethnic categories were largely similar except that the white category included identification as Scottish, and Scottish nationality/ethnicity was an additional option for 'minority' ethnic respondents alongside British identification. The debate about changes that should be made to the 2001 Census was a lively one during the 1990s, mainly in England, and included academics, policymakers and community representatives. The form which an ethnicity question should take was widened to include the possibility of asking a religion question too, reflecting strongest concern among South Asian groups and Muslims (Aspinall, 1996).
Religion was re-introduced into the Censuses for the first time in a century and a half. In England and Wales, the religion question asked was, 'What is your religion?' and included a list of possible categories including 'None' and 'Christian'. In Scotland, two religion questions were introduced which focused on current belonging and upbringing, and differed from the England/Wales question by disaggregating Christians of Church of Scotland, Roman Catholic and Other Christian faiths. The Scottish religion questions were an amalgam of the questions of England/Wales and Northern Ireland. Like Northern Ireland they asked about upbringing and disaggregated Christians, and like England and Wales they named non-Christian religious categories which did not happen in Northern Ireland.
The Scottish questions were therefore the most detailed of religious questions. This was particularly remarkable given that in the White Paper of March 1999, Scotland did not propose to include a religion question at all as, 'consultation with users in Scotland indicated there was a far less strong business case for information to be collected on religion' (The 2001 Census of Population, 1999, para. 67). Similarly in March 1999, the Scots proposed to use 1991 Census ethnic categories with the only change proposed being the inclusion of an unspecified 'mixed ethnic group' category. Thus initially, it was felt that the expanded ethnicity categories proposed in England/Wales were not necessary in Scotland. This overlooked the case made by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) and the Federation of Irish Societies (FIS), and accepted by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), for the inclusion of an Irish ethnic category. However, by Spring 2000, the Scottish ethnicity question was also expanded to broadly mimic that in the rest of Great Britain and further expanded to include Scottish as well as 'other British' national/ethnic identification.
To understand why these questions developed in this way, it is necessary to analyse the specific political context in Scotland from March 1999 until April 2000 and how this impacted upon the Census issue. It is later argued that the importance of this context to the development of the religion and ethnicity questions may prove relevant to the eventual use/misuse of these Census data. The particular focus will be on the inclusion of religion in the Scottish Census and in particular the disaggregation of Catholics from other Christian groupings, and the expansion of the ethnicity question to include Irish ethnicity. This analysis of events draws primarily on publicly available sources of data and the author's involvement in the consultation process following publication of the 1999 White Paper.
A chronicle of some key public events in Scotland
In March 1999 the White Paper on 2001 Census of Population was published (The 2001 Census of Population, 1999). No religion question was proposed, nor any expansion of the ethnicity question of 1991 for Scotland, except for an additional 'mixed ethnic group' category. A press release from the General Register Office for Scotland (GRO) announced that proposals for Scotland 'have been carefully considered in the light of Scottish circumstances. It will be for the Scottish parliament to take a final view on what questions are asked' (Scottish Office, 4 March 1999). Publicly, the CRE and Asian community leaders were critical of the decision not to include religion in the Scottish Census although specific mention neither of Catholics, nor of an Irish category, was made (The Herald, 3 June 1999). Meanwhile during the summer months anti-Catholic sectarianism gained much press coverage as both the manager of the Scotland football team and vice-chairman of Rangers Football Club were accused of singing anti-Catholic songs ((The Herald, 1 June 1999; (The Guardian, 12 July 1999). In early August, James MacMillan, a leading Scottish Catholic composer, used a speech at the opening of the Edinburgh Festival to highlight the issue of anti-Catholic sectarianism in Scotland ((The Guardian, 9 August 1999; (The Herald, 10 August). Further media debate followed which included academics who deliberated the social position of Scotland's Catholics, sectarianism, the relatively poorer health of Scotland's Catholics and the need to include religion, including a Catholic category in the forthcoming Census ((The Guardian, 11 August 1999; (The Herald, 10 August, 1999; (The Herald, 13 August 1999; (The Herald, 23 August 1999; (The Sunday Herald, 22 August 1999). MacMillan's speech and the responses to it later prompted publication of a series of essays on sectarianism in Scotland ((Devine 2000). On 27 August GRO ((General Register Office for Scotland, 1999) wrote to various academics, community leaders, religious leaders and politicians presenting arguments for and against the inclusion of a religion question and seeking additional comments by the end of September. Among others, submissions were received from the Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit in Glasgow (MRC) who supported Catholic and Irish inclusion based on their research programme investigating ethnic/religious inequalities, and the FIS who had been involved for many years in working for the recognition of the needs of the Irish community in Britain.
On 10 January 2000 the Draft Census (Scotland) Order 2000 was laid before the Scottish parliament. Four noted exclusions were of questions on religion and enhanced categorisation of ethnic groups, as well as Scots language and income (Scottish Parliament, 26 January 2000). Not long after, Karen Whitefield, Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP), asked a parliamentary question on the exclusion of a religion question in light of academic evidence of Catholic and Irish health and employment disadvantage (Scottish Parliament, 13 January 2000). The Glasgow Herald gave its backing to a religion question, linking its relevance to the debate about anti-Catholic discrimination in Scotland. The Scottish Executive's decision to exclude religion was attacked in the press by a number of academics. One declared that the Executive's reasons for this was 'spurious' and resulting from decisions of 'some key civil servants more concerned with the asking of questions and creating difficulties for form-fillers than a desire to have the information' (The Herald, 13 January 2000). Further interest among politicians was witnessed in the lodging of a motion by Brian Monteith, MSP, calling for a religion question in the Census on 17 January 2000 (Scottish Parliament, 17 January 2000).
On 18 January 2000, the Equal Opportunities Committee (EOC) of the Scottish Parliament welcomed Mick Conboy of the CRE to a discussion on the Census (Scotland) Order 2000. Mr. Conboy elaborated the CRE case for the inclusion of religion and the expansion of ethnic categories. Although he did not specifically mention either Catholics or the Irish, papers circulated at the meeting clearly supported a breakdown of the white category, including 'Irish'. The EOC decided to lodge an amendment to the census order (Scottish Parliament, 18 January 2000). The press foretold that the Scottish Executive might be forced to make a 'U-turn' by including a religion question (The Herald, 19 January 2000). Following a meeting of the EOC on 1 February where draft amendments to the Census order were discussed, an amendment was agreed (Scottish Parliament, 1 February 2000), and later lodged by the Convenor, Kate McLean, MSP. It specified to: a) introduce a Bill to amend the Census Act 1920 to enable particulars to be required in respect of religion in the Census in Scotland and b) to lay a revised draft Order which will include, within particulars to be stated in returns, a question on religion, a revised question on ethnic group, and a question on language spoken at home' (Scottish Parliament, 2 February 2000). The Convenor of EOC was quoted as justifying the amendment because of claims of Catholic health and employment disadvantage (The Herald, 2 February 2000).
On 8 February 2000, the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice with responsibility for the Census, Jim Wallace, accompanied by John Randall the Registrar General and David Orr, Head of Census Branch of GRO, attended a meeting of EOC to present the case for not including a religion question nor extending ethnic categories. Following a heated debate, members of EOC, unconvinced, decided their amendment should go ahead. However, changes from the amendment tabled the previous week were included, specifying a breakdown of religion categories including Christian categories (in line with Northern Ireland) and in line with CRE's recommendations on ethnic background (which would include an Irish category) and religion (Scottish Parliament, 8 February 2000). This new amendment was later lodged (Scottish Parliament, 10 February 2000). On the same day as the EOC meeting a number of academics jointly appealed to the EOC to stand firm on their proposed amendment to the Census order for a religion question, including details of Christian denominations. Although the need for data on Catholics was implied, there was no reference to extending the ethnicity categories (The Herald, 8 February 2000). The press soon reported that the Executive 'faces revolt on religious question' (The Herald, 9 February 2000).
On 15 February at a meeting of the EOC, the Convenor announced that the Executive had revised its motion and that there would be a question on religious denomination including a breakdown of Christian affiliation and faith of upbringing, and consultation on a more detailed ethnic group question. The Convenor confirmed that this was as yet, 'a handwritten unofficial note'. Other MSPs referred to having heard rumours in the press, and different accounts of proposed changes and one sceptically noted change had occurred, 'not because the minister agrees with us, but because he is taking on board the fact that he cannot win on a vote'. The committee agreed not to withdraw the motion of the previous week because they had not received official notice of what the Executive was planning, but nonetheless welcomed the apparent change of heart on the matter (Scottish Parliament, 15 February 2000). The next day Jim Wallace announced the decision of the Executive to include a religion question including religion of upbringing and current belonging and a breakdown of Christianity, and promised consideration of an expansion of the ethnicity question, subject to space constraints. He added that GRO would soon consult on proposals for both religion and ethnicity questions. The Convenor of the EOC committee announced that she had withdrawn the motion to amend the Census Order because of the change in the Executive's position, although this had not been supported unanimously by the committee. The Draft Census Order was agreed (Scottish Parliament, 16 February 2000).
Following the decision of the Executive, GRO produced two possible options for the question on religion which mirrored the Northern Ireland question. They also produced three ethnicity options, none of which proposed a breakdown of the white category (therefore excluding an Irish ethnic category). Comments on these options were sought by 17 March from interested parties. GRO's consultation document (General Register Office for Scotland, 2000) specifically excluded the possibility of both the religion option most similar to that in Northern Ireland and the ethnicity question most similar to that in England/Wales on the grounds of space that Jim Wallace had previously referred to. On 9 March agreement to the general principles of Census (Amendment) Scotland Bill to allow a religion question to be asked was passed. One MSP noted the exclusion of an Irish category in the GRO consultation paper, and expressed concern about GRO's ignoring of CRE's support of an Irish category (Scottish Parliament, 9 March 2000). A further meeting of EOC noted the disappointment of the Consulate General of Ireland, conveyed in a letter to the Convenor, that an Irish category was not included in the Scottish census in line with England and Wales. EOC confirmed they would like an Irish category included in the ethnicity question (Scottish Parliament, 14 March 2000). The following day the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill was passed (Scottish Parliament, 15 March). A month later Jim Wallace gave details of Census questions including breakdown of the white category. This breakdown was to include Scottish, other British, Irish, and other white background - as well as two voluntary questions on religion including breakdown of Christians (Scottish Executive, 25 April 2000) reflecting proposals made by MRC and FIS (Federation of Irish Societies, 2000).
Making sense of the Census debate in Scotland
Throughout the debate on whether or not to include a religion question in Scotland, or to extend the ethnicity question of 1991, opposition to change came from GRO and the Scottish Executive on advice from GRO. The main arguments produced on this side concerned the apparent lack of need for these data among main census users including local authorities and health authorities, most notably the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Another major focus was on potential (although unproven) methodological problems of asking about religion concerning meaningfulness, and therefore usefulness of such data. Concerns were also raised about the sensitivity of the topic and the assumed (though untested) effects on overall survey response rates. It was further argued that the issue of religion could best be tackled by other surveys (General Register Office for Scotland, 1999; (Scottish Parliament, 26 January 2000; Scottish Parliament, 13 January 2000; Scottish Parliament, 8 February 2000). Denying the potential and scope of what would be Scotland's largest survey, the Registrar General argued that, 'If the need is....for information at a Scotland-wide level or at a local authority level, it is possible to collect reliable information through other approaches' (Scottish Parliament, 8 February 2000). Throughout, census 'user-need' and census form-filler effects formed the basis for the arguments of those who wished neither to extend ethnic categories, nor to include a religion question. Specific Scottish needs were also argued, in that GRO did not appear to see a case for the inclusion of an Irish ethnic category because of claims that more of the Irish community in Scotland were born in Northern Ireland, than in England and Wales. Further, it was argued that disadvantage was not so great among this particular group (General Register Office for Scotland, 1999; Scottish Parliament, 26 January 2000).
On the other side of the debate were a majority of MSPs with EOC members at the helm, religious and community leaders, some local authorities, academics, CRE, FIS, the press and seemingly much public opinion. Communication between the various public bodies focused rather on discourses of equality, discrimination and service provision and the need for accurate data in order to address agendas of equality and social inclusion. In contrast to the perspective of GRO which argued for specific Scottish needs, these pro-religion question and extended-ethnicity adherents argued for the need for comparability of data with England/Wales (extended ethnicity categories) as well as the need to address specific Scottish equality agendas (religious and Catholic inclusion in the light of sectarianism debates and evidence). Whilst united in their goals, there was disagreement about what Census data on religion and ethnicity might uncover: Scottish tolerance and Scottish intolerance were predicted to be both proven and challenged by the forthcoming data (Scottish Parliament, 16 February 2000; 9 March 2000).
MSPs clearly used arguments sustained by public opinion and academic findings (Scottish Parliament, 13 January 2000; 16 February 2000; 9 March 2000;). Of particular note was their reference to Catholic disadvantage and discrimination sourced through both academic research and public perceptions of the extent of (Catholic/Protestant) bigotry in Scottish society. Not to have a religion question would have set Scotland apart from the UK, as less interested in the voices and fates of its minorities: not to have a Catholic category would have been a political impossibility in a climate conversant with sectarianism.
Although it was not explicitly addressed by MSPs, pushing for a question on religious upbringing (as in Northern Ireland) rather than just current religion (as in England/Wales) gave official credibility to the fact that it is not religious belief per se., but rather ethnic belonging, based on religious markers, which denotes Irish-descended 'Catholic' minority group status in Scotland. Irish names and Catholic schooling are also commonly used to denote Irish 'otherness' (Walls and Williams, 1998). In the west of Scotland in particular, where substantial numbers of Irish immigrants settled since the Irish Famine of the middle of the 19th century, Catholic religion continues to be an extremely accurate marker of Irish Catholic origin (Williams, 1993). The links between Catholicism and Irish ethnicity were recognized by GRO in their consultation paper of February 2000 when they specifically referred to the lesser need for identifying the Irish ethnic group in Scotland, than in England/Wales, as 'with a question on religion now to be included with a subdivision of 'Christian', the need to distinguish 'Irish' in the ethnicity question is diminished' (General Register Office for Scotland, 2000). Identifying Catholics was clearly being traded off with identifying the Irish as a census category. References to Scotland's greater proportion of Northern Irish-born (implied Protestant) than Republic of Irish-born (implied Catholic) was a spurious argument, as ethnicity does not always tally with birthplace, nor origin in Ireland with religion. GRO's suggestion that many Northern Irish-born (as Protestants) might classify as British rather than Irish, therefore leading to an 'undercounting' of the Irish, ignores the crucial issue that ethnicity is self-defined. The political agendas affecting ethnic self-assignment is evident from the Northern Ireland Census where Protestants and Catholics are denied the right to identify as either British or Irish, but instead given the racialised option of 'white'. When an Irish category was finally accepted in Scotland, this was because those consulted resolved the problem of space by sacrificing the extended mixed ethnic categories introduced in England/Wales.
The battle to get an adequate religion question in Scotland and the inclusion of an Irish ethnic category, was a major success for minority groups, academics and politicians interested in addressing issues of service provision and need, discrimination and disadvantage, equal opportunities and social inclusion. The co-operation among the press, politicians, community leaders and academics can be gleaned from an analysis of the language and arguments increasingly adopted and shared by members of this alliance committed to gaining accurate data on which policy and services could be based. The Executive finally adopted the language of an equality agenda. However, it now needs to be asked, how are such data, now gathered, likely to be used, misused, or at worst, perhaps ignored? A brief summary of the situation of the Irish in Britain may prove a timely reminder of how data alone do not affect policy, when political mindsets (including those of academics) remain entrenched in the post-war racialisation of ethnicity. This position is still evident despite challenging research evidence that 'whiteness' is no guarantee of social, material and (for the purposes of the specific argument here) health advantage.
The Irish in Britain: a health research warning
There has been a wealth of research data gathered during the 1980s and 1990s showing that the Irish-born and second generation Irish in England and Wales, and the Irish-descended in Scotland have persistently worse health than the rest of the population. This is the case whether measured by mortality (Marmot et al., 1984; Balarajan and Bulusu, 1990; Raftery et al., 1990; Balarajan, 1995; Harding and Balarajan, 1996; Abbotts et al., 1998; Abbotts et al., 1999a), morbidity (Abbotts et al., 1997; Abbotts et al., 1999b) or mental health (Cochrane and Bal, 1989). To date, neither social class position nor health behaviours can adequately explain these patterns. Other possible explanations sought in (usually, stereotypes of) Irish culture and selection theories have lain unsubstantiated. Despite these research findings, the ethnicity and health agenda, and the wider black and ethnic minority agenda, continues predominantly to align skin colour with ethnicity, thus rendering research on the Irish invisible (see for a fuller discussion, Bracken and O'Sullivan, 2001). It is evidently not the case that the Irish have been invisible within research on minorities, but rather that research findings remain uninterpreted or overlooked, when compared with other minorities, and are consistently ignored when it comes to policy initiatives.
The reasons for Irish exclusion may lie in the long history of British/Irish relations, leading some authors to conclude, 'The historiographic legacy has left British health research unable, or unwilling, to follow the logic of its own statistical material and explore the Irish dimension' (Bracken and O'Sullivan, 2001:49). Of particular note within the history of ethnic debate in Britain is the way in which after the war, for pragmatic political reasons, the Irish were exempt from many of the immigration controls to which other groups were subject (Connor 1987; Hickman, 1998). The effect of this was the development of debates which focused around skin colour, thus leading to a denial at all levels that the situation of the Irish in Britain could possibly differ from that of the indigenous British population. When research findings, including health research, clearly contradicted this, there seemed no discourse within which it was permissible to address the needs of Britain's largest ethnic and migrant group. This situation has persisted ever since, resulting in official and academic Irish submersion under an umbrella of 'white' homogeneous British identity (Hickman, 1998). However, Irish inclusion in the Census, albeit within an increasingly scrutinised 'white' ethnicity (Bonnett, 1993; Bradby, 1995; Bonnett, 2000), may be the beginning of a political and research agenda which is beginning to reflect more accurately how different minorities fare in British society, long after they were assumed to have assimilated. The nature of the debate in Scotland presents an interesting example of wider British tensions connected to ethnicity and religion: 'whiteness' has not been an 'ethnicity' but has been a means to submerge ethnicities of British, Scottish, Irish and others, and religion, whilst an important aspect of ethnic identity for many, has needed to be excluded because, particularly in the Scottish context, it may be little more than a short-hand for Irish ethnicity, as GRO implied, and remote from religious practice per se.
The future of data on Irish and Catholics
How data on these groups are analysed, and by whom, remains to be seen. They are likely to be used by the Irish community in Britain in order to 'reach a better understanding of itself' (Bracken and O'Sullivan, 2001:50) and inevitably to argue for policy initiatives which address specific Irish needs. One of the problems with the ethnic data may be an undercounting of those of Irish ethnicity within the census data (Southworth, 1999), an effect of suppression of Irish ethnicity. Those outside the Irish community, also interested in addressing inequality, will have to argue for the redrawing of new parameters of ethnicity and religion.
So what of the Census ouputs? There are already rumblings that GRO will not follow the lead of ONS in providing full classification of Ethnic Group in Standard Tables (thus excluding the Irish), and are considering whether Ethnic Group Tables proposed in England/Wales, 'would be appropriate for Scotland'. Furthermore, there is no plan to provide detail on religion in Standard Tables, although these data could be provided on request. Nonetheless, in Scotland, it seems that academics may finally have comparable data on Catholics with non-Catholics with which to adequately address the issue of whether and where Irish Catholic disadvantage is located, rather than arguing on the basis of current small datasets (Paterson, 2000; Rosie and McCrone, 2000; Williams and Walls, 2000) and new data on the Irish ethnic group in Britain will permit analysis of the Irish alongside other ethnic groups. However data analysis is only part of what is necessary. The challenge to enact policy change based on researching 'white' ethnicities and religions has yet to be seriously confronted.
References
Aspinall, P. (1996) The Development of an Ethnic Group Question for the 2001 Census: The findings of a consultation exercise with members of the 2001 Census Working Subgroup on the Ethnic Group Question. London: Office for National Statistics (Census Division of Census, Population and Health Group).
Abbotts, J., Williams, R., Ford, G., Hunt, K. and West, P. (1997) 'Morbidity and Irish Catholic descent in Britain: an ethnic and religious minority 150 years on', Social Science and Medicine, 45(1): 3-14.
Abbotts, J., Williams, R. and Davey Smith, G. (1998) 'Mortality of men of Irish heritage in West Scotland', Public Health 112(4): 229-232.
Abbotts, J., Williams, R. and Davey Smith, G. (1999a) 'Association of medical, physiological, behavioural and socio-economic factors with elevated mortality in men of Irish heritage in West Scotland', Journal of Public Health Medicine 21(1): 46-54.
Abbotts, J., Williams, R., Ford, G., Hunt, K. and West, P. (1999b) 'Morbidity and Irish Catholic descent in Britain: Relating health disadvantage to behaviour', Ethnicity and Health 4(4): 221-230.
Balarajan, R. (1995) 'Ethnicity and variations in the nation's health' Health Trends 27(4): 114-119.
Balarajan, R. and Bulusu, L. (1990) 'Mortality among immigrants in England and Wales, 1979-1983' in M. Britton (ed.) Mortality and Geography: A review in the Mid-1980s London: HMSO, pp. 103-121.
Bracken, P.J. and O'Sullivan, P. (2001) 'The Invisibility of Irish Migrants in British Health Research', Irish Studies Review, 9(1): 41-51.
Bradby, H. (1995) 'Ethnicity: not a black and white issue. A research note', Sociology of Health and Illness 17: 405-417.
Bonnett, A. (1993) 'Forever White? Challenges and alternatives to a racial monolith', New Community 20(1): 173-180.
Bonnett, A. (2000) Anti-racism London: Routledge.
Cochrane, R. and Bal, S.S. (1989) 'Mental hospital admission rates of immigrants to England: a comparison of 1971 and 1981', Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 24: 2-11.
Connor, T. (1987) The London Irish London: London Strategic Policy Unit.
Devine, T. (2000) (ed.) Scotland's Shame? Bigotry and Sectarianism in Modern Scotland, Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing Co. Ltd.
Federation of Irish Societies. (2000) Response of Federation of Irish Societies to consultation on 2001 Census of Population: Questions on religion and ethnicity for Scotland, London: Federation of Irish Societies, 14 March.
General Register Office for Scotland. (2000) 2001 Census of Population, Scotland: Consultation on questions about religion and ethnicity, 25 February.
General Register Office for Scotland. (1999) 2001 Census of Population: Question on Religion, 27 August.
Harding, S. and Balarajan, R. (1996) 'Patterns of mortality in second generation Irish living in England and Wales', British Medical Journal 312: 1389-1392.
Hickman, M.J. (1998) 'Reconstructing deconstructing 'race': British political discourses about the Irish in Britain', Ethnic and Racial Studies 21(2): 288-307.
Marmot, M.G., Adelstein, A.M., and Bulusu, L. (1984) Immigrant mortality in England and Wales 1970-78 London: HMSO.
Paterson, L. (2000) 'The social class of Catholics in Scotland'. J. R. Statist. Soc. A 163(3): 363-379.
Raftery, J., Jones, D.R., and Rosato, M. (1990) 'The mortality of first and second generation Irish immigrants in the UK', Social Science and Medicine 24(3): 91-94.
Rosie, M. and McCrone, D. (2000) 'The Past is History: Catholics in Modern Scotland' in T. Devine (ed.) Scotland's Shame? Bigotry and Sectarianism in Modern Scotland, Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing Co. Ltd, 199-217.
Scottish Executive. (25 April 2000) Press Release: Jim Wallace Unveils Details of the 2001 Census Amendment Order, SE1210/2000.
Scottish Office. (1999) News Release: Government proposals for the 2001 Census of Population, 4 March.
- (13 January 2000) Official Report, Vol. 4. No. 2.
- (17 January 2000) Business Bulletin 7/2000, Section F, Motion S1M-424.
- (18 January 2000) Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report, Meeting 1.
- (26 January 2000) The Draft Census (Scotland) Order 2000 Research Paper 00/01, The Information Centre.
- (1 February 2000) Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report, Meeting 2.
- (2 February 2000) Business Bulletin 19/2000, Section F, Motion S1M-487.
- (8 February 2000) Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report, Meeting 3.
- (10 February 2000) Business Bulletin, 25/2000, Section F, Motion S1M-519.
- (15 February 2000) Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report, Meeting 4.
- (16 February 2000) Official Report, Vol. 4. No.11.
- (9 March 2000) Official Report, Vol. 5. No. 6.
- (14 March 2000) Equal Opportunities Committee Official Report, Meeting 7.
- (15 March 2000) Official Report, Vol. 5. No. 7.
Southworth, J. (1999) 'The Religious Question: Representing Reality or Compounding Confusion?' in D. Dorling and S. Simpson (eds.) Statistics in Society: The arithmetic of politics London: Arnold.
The 2001 Census of Population. (1999) (Cm 4253) 4 March.
The Guardian:- 9 August 1999, 11 August 1999, 12 July 1999.
- 1 June 1999, 3 June 1999, 10 August 1999, 13 August, 1999, 23 August 1999, 13 January 2000, 19 January 2000, 2 February 2000, 8 February 2000, 9 February 2000.
The Sunday Herald, 22 August 1999.
Walls, P. and Williams, R. (1998) 'Irish and Catholic - Double Disadvantage? Linking minority religious and ethnic identity to health inequality' BSA Medical Sociology Group Conference University of York, September.
Williams, R. (1993) 'Can data on Scottish Catholics tell us about descendants of the Irish in Scotland?' New Community 19(2): 296-309.
Williams, R. and Walls, P. (2000) 'Going but Not Gone: Catholic Disadvantage in Scotland' in T. Devine (ed.) Scotland's Shame? Bigotry and Sectarianism in Modern Scotland Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing Co. Ltd, 231-252.
Patricia Walls
Former Research Associate and part-time PhD Student
Ethnicity, Religion and Health Programme,
MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit,
University of Glasgow
G12 8RZ
Tel: 0141-357-3949
www.msoc-mrc.gla.ac.uk
E-mail: WallsAMP@aol.com
