** Gavin - I used the word "stupidly" for the process whereby there was no proper scrutiny of the records, to see what merited inclusion or exclusion. In their haste to get the Act through, they skipped that sort of examination and just lumped it all together. The Registrar General for Scotland had accordingly no authority for any decision, so we get a dichotomy between England and Scotland. Gordon. Gavin said: > Gordon Johnson wrote: >>> ... >>> In Scotland, the Scotland Act stupidly enshrined the 100 year embargo on >>> all Scottish public records, and the census was caught by that, so no >>> early release in Scotland, unless the law is altered by the Scottish >>> parliament. > > > > I wouldn't call it stupid. There is a big difference between "the > public interest" and "what the public might be interested in". The > Census asks some quite personal questions, and the non-publication rule > is there to reassure people that their data will not be released until > long after they are dead and gone. > > Family historians may regret that some other data is embargoed, but in > at least some cases, the applicaton of the 100-year rule is posthumously > righting a historic invasion of privacy. While the relevant laws were > in force (until 1930) any data supplied by persons applying for relief > under the Poor Law immediately became a matter of public record, because > any ratepayer could demand to view the Registers (and in some cases, eg > the City of Aberdeen, the information was actually printed and published!) > > > Gavin Bell > > > ------------------------------