Doing Relationships and Sexuality Education with Young People in State Care

Background: Existing literature indicates that young people in state carehave particular sexual health needs that include addressing their social andemotional well-being, yet little has been published as to how thesecomponents of sex education are actually delivered by service-providers.Objective: To analyse the processes involved in delivering relationship andsexuality education to young people in state care from the perspectives ofa sample of service-providers with a role in sexual health care delivery.Design: Qualitative methodological strategy.Setting: Service-delivery sites at urban and rural locations in Ireland.Method: Twenty-two service-providers were interviewed in depth, and datawere analysed using a qualitative analytical strategy resembling modifiedanalytical induction.Findings: Participants proffered their perceptions and examples of theirpractices of sex education in relation to the following themes: (1)acknowledging the multi-dimensional nature of sexual health in the case ofyoung people in care; (2) personal and emotional development educationto address poor self-esteem, emotional disconnectedness and an inabilityto recognise and express emotions; (3) social skills’ education as part of arepertoire of competencies needed to negotiate relationships and safer sex;(4) the application of positive social skills embedded in everyday socialsituations; and (5) factual sexuality education.Conclusion: Insights into service providers’ perceptions of the multidimensionalnature of the sexual health needs of young people in statecare, and the ways in which these service-providers justified their practicemake visible the complex character of sex education and the degree of skillrequired to deliver it to those in state care.

Official histories of parliament and the nature of the union of 1707:a forgotten episode in Anglo-Scottish academic relations

The Scottish Committee on the History of Parliament was established in 1936 as an offshoot of Col. Josiah Wedgwood's scheme for a collaborative ‘history of parliament’ researched and written on biographical lines. Circumstances, however, determined that the Scottish history would take a separate path. When Wedgwood's scheme was revived in 1951 an unsuccessful attempt was made to reintegrate the two projects. Discussions between the respective managing committees were conflicted and often bad-tempered, focussing on different interpretations of the nature of the united parliament created in 1707. The Scottish committee insisted that it was a new constitutional entity, while the English saw it as a continuation of the Westminster parliament with Scottish MPs added. This story of mutual incomprehension illustrates the profound differences between Scottish and English academics in the writing of parliamentary history, and also reveals a hitherto unobserved element in the development among leading Scottish jurists of a strain of ‘legal nationalism’ based on their interpretation of the constitutional significance of the Union.

Divided Conquerors: the Rump Parliament, Cromwell's Army and Ireland

This article reassesses the relationship that existed in the period 1649–53 between war in Ireland and politics in England. Drawing upon a largely overlooked Irish army petition, it seeks to remedy an evident disconnect between the respective historiographies of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland on the one hand and the Rump Parliament on the other. The article reconstructs some of the various disputes over religion, authority and violence that undermined the unity of the English wartime regime in Ireland. It then charts the eventual spilling over of these disputes into Westminster politics, arguing that their impact on deteriorating army-parliament relations in the year prior to Oliver Cromwell’s expulsion of the Rump in April 1653 has not been fully appreciated. The key driver of these developments was John Weaver, a republican MP and commissioner for the civil government of Ireland. The article explains how his efforts both to place restraints on the excessive violence of the conquest and to exert civilian control over the military evolved, by 1652, into a determined campaign at Westminster to strengthen the powers of Ireland’s civil government and to limit the army’s share in the prospective Irish land settlement. Weaver’s campaign forced the army officers in Ireland to intervene at Westminster, thus placing increased pressure on the Rump Parliament. This reassessment also enables the early 1650s to be viewed more clearly as a key phase in the operation of the longer-term relationships of mutual influence that existed between Dublin and London in the seventeenth century.

Oliver Cromwell and the 'Cromwellian' Settlement of Ireland

Oliver Cromwell remains a deeply controversial figure in Ireland. In the past decade, his role in the conquest has received sustained attention. However, in recent scholarship on the settlement of Ireland in the 1650s, he has enjoyed a peculiarly low profile. This trend has served to compound the interpretative problems relating to Cromwell and Ireland which stem in part from the traditional denominational divide in Irish historiography. This article offers a reappraisal of Cromwell's role in designing and implementing the far-reaching ‘Cromwellian’ land settlement. It examines the evidence relating to his dealings with Irish people, both Protestant and Catholic, and his attitude towards the enormous difficulties which they faced post-conquest. While the massacre at Drogheda in 1649 remains a blot on his reputation, in the 1650s Cromwell in fact emerged as an important and effective ally for Irish landowners seeking to defeat the punitive confiscation and transplantation policies approved by the Westminster parliament and favoured by the Dublin government.