Scottish history included in Higher exam
It's about time. After years of concern that Scottish history has been wrongly excluded from the Higher exam it is to be made a compulsory element of the paper.
The move by Scotland's exam body follows a long-running campaign by teachers and academics, first aired in The Herald two years ago, to ensure questions about Scottish history appeared in the exam paper.
While the Higher always had Scottish questions, they were in topics that weren't commonly studied by schools, who mostly opted to teach the later modern period.
In that section there was no guarantee that a Scottish question would come up and teachers therefore chose other subjects, such as the suffragettes.
In 2005, the situation was described as a "national disgrace" by Professor Tom Devine, the nation's foremost contemporary historian, who said Scotland was the only country in Europe with a national history that was not compulsory in school.
The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) was also lobbied by the Scottish Association of Teachers of History (Sath) who called for a review of the course.
Following the review in May this year, which overwhelmingly backed change, the SQA has decided to introduce a revised Higher paper in the 2010-11 school year which will feature a compulsory section on Scottish history.
Although the content is still under consideration, topics could include the 1286-1329 Wars of Independence, migration and Scotland's role in the Empire and the Act of Union. Existing topics likely to be retained include the home rule movement, the 1979 referendum on devolution, protests on Clydeside and slum clearances in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
The move emerged on the day that a report by school's inspectors questioned whether pupils in primary and S1 and S2 were getting a proper understanding of Scottish history because of the freedom given to schools over what is taught.
An HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) evaluation of history said flexibility was good because it allowed schools to focus on local issues of interest, but meant "the development of a balanced and coherent experience" was "far from guaranteed".
"In particular, there is currently no certainty that pupils' engagement with history will allow them to build up a sense of how Scotland's past has developed; and hence understand significant issues of national identity and Scotland's place in the wider world," the report states.
Last night, history teachers and academics welcomed the changes to the Higher exam, but said that to get to grips with the underlying problems of history identified by HMIE required an increase in the amount of time spent teaching the subject.
Mr Devine said: "This is a major step forward and one that is to be welcomed. The spine of our history should be Scottish and moving out from that should be British, European and world history.
"However, there is still some way to go.
"We still await the implementation of the Scottish Government's manifesto promise to embed Scottish history throughout school life.
"There has been an eerie silence on this so far."
Duncan Toms, president of Sath, also welcomed the move. "There has been a feeling for a long time that higher up the school there was much less representation of Scottish history than there should have been, particularly in the modern options," he said.
Following the SQA's consultation 62% of respondents agreed that Scottish history should be a compulsory part of the Higher history.
Curriculum contenders
The wars of Independence 1286-1329: Founding document of the Scottish nation, the Declaration of Abroath was drawn up in 1320 following continued attacks by the English army on Scottish soil. the document was designed to convey the case of independence to the Pope.
Scotland at War and Peace 1914-1945: Tanks sent into Glasgow in 1919 to stem violent post-war strikes which erupted as workers, battled against low wages and squalid living conditions at a time when the city's industrialists were enjoying vast profits.
1689-1715: The Glencoe Massacre of 1692 saw 38 people killed by government soldiers after Chief of Glencoe Alistair MacIain failed to pledge his allegiance to King William III in time. Notorious after troops turned on their Glencoe hosts following a night of Highland hospitality.
Scotland in the Age of Reformation: Catholic priest turned Protestant preacher, the story of Scotland's Reformation in the 1500's is bound to the story of John Knox, who counted Mary, Queen of Scots as his chief antagonist.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:15am Tue 20 Nov 07
Isn't it amazing? No sooner do we get a Scottish Government,
than Scottish History becomes compulsory...
Isn't it amazing? No sooner do we get a Scottish Government,
than Scottish History becomes compulsory...
Posted by: Historian on 12:42am Tue 20 Nov 07
A welcome development but too late for ignoramuses like the first poster
A welcome development but too late for ignoramuses like the first poster
Posted by: John on 12:51am Tue 20 Nov 07
Meanwhile the compulsory Scottish Literature element, introduced to the Higher exams in 2000, has been quietly dropped.
Meanwhile the compulsory Scottish Literature element, introduced to the Higher exams in 2000, has been quietly dropped.
Posted by: William Alexander, Delta, Canada on 2:32am Tue 20 Nov 07
My God whats happening. No wars of the Roses? No Henry V111.
No England expects every man to do his duty in 1812, 105 years after 1707 and the formation of Britain? No mention of the fact that Scottish military losses per unit of population were twice that of the English under the leadership of Scottish elite Earl Haig Perhaps the Highland clearances might be mentioned as carried out by the Scottish elite?
The only history book I read at school that was worth reading was the rise of the modern nations which was fascinating in 1945 but was removed as it had been written by a socialist.
Long overdue to teach Scottish history but please without the anti English slant in the history books I had to read. The truth this time especially about the role of the Scottish elite.
My God whats happening. No wars of the Roses? No Henry V111.
No England expects every man to do his duty in 1812, 105 years after 1707 and the formation of Britain? No mention of the fact that Scottish military losses per unit of population were twice that of the English under the leadership of Scottish elite Earl Haig Perhaps the Highland clearances might be mentioned as carried out by the Scottish elite?
The only history book I read at school that was worth reading was the rise of the modern nations which was fascinating in 1945 but was removed as it had been written by a socialist.
Long overdue to teach Scottish history but please without the anti English slant in the history books I had to read. The truth this time especially about the role of the Scottish elite.
Posted by: Brian Hill, Edinburgh on 2:42am Tue 20 Nov 07
It's ridiculous that we should even be discussing this, as the article said we are the only country in Europe whose national history is not compulsory in schools. Nothing to do with the fact that England and her Scottish allies have been trying to subsume all things Scottish into the British (English) melting pot I suppose.
I was at Edinburgh before I got any real Scottish History and even that was ruined for me by the Unionist Professor Donaldson.
The genie is indeed out of the bottle and there is no way it is going back. Independence by 2017? Who would argue against that as being an increasingly real possibility?
It's ridiculous that we should even be discussing this, as the article said we are the only country in Europe whose national history is not compulsory in schools. Nothing to do with the fact that England and her Scottish allies have been trying to subsume all things Scottish into the British (English) melting pot I suppose.
I was at Edinburgh before I got any real Scottish History and even that was ruined for me by the Unionist Professor Donaldson.
The genie is indeed out of the bottle and there is no way it is going back. Independence by 2017? Who would argue against that as being an increasingly real possibility?
Posted by: martin, dundee on 3:53am Tue 20 Nov 07
When a friend ,as teacher in Glasgow in the early ninties, suggested a project on the Highland Clearances, the headmaster told her that it was too political a subject and forbid it(!)
This is just one instance where Scotlands history has been supressed.
Our children should of course be taught about their history. It is quite natural to do so and quite unnatural to suggest otherwise.
When a friend ,as teacher in Glasgow in the early ninties, suggested a project on the Highland Clearances, the headmaster told her that it was too political a subject and forbid it(!)
This is just one instance where Scotlands history has been supressed.
Our children should of course be taught about their history. It is quite natural to do so and quite unnatural to suggest otherwise.
Posted by: Dougie Douglas, Brisbane on 3:55am Tue 20 Nov 07
William Alexander @ 2.32
I agree with some of what you post - that Scottish elites have much to answer for.
They don't have a great deal to answer for before 1606 do they though!?
Were the wars of independence not between a small country and a larger one trying to impose it will through force?! Not much revisionism required there me thinks!
Would you be able to reference a paper/article/book/w
ebpage that gives an anti Engish slant as you imply exist in great tomes?
Lastly why do you think it is suppresed information - that we endured far heavier losses than our 'partners' in WW1?? - why would that be?, I just cannot imagine.
William Alexander @ 2.32
I agree with some of what you post - that Scottish elites have much to answer for.
They don't have a great deal to answer for before 1606 do they though!?
Were the wars of independence not between a small country and a larger one trying to impose it will through force?! Not much revisionism required there me thinks!
Would you be able to reference a paper/article/book/w
ebpage that gives an anti Engish slant as you imply exist in great tomes?
Lastly why do you think it is suppresed information - that we endured far heavier losses than our 'partners' in WW1?? - why would that be?, I just cannot imagine.
Posted by: BrianW, Renfrew on 4:43am Tue 20 Nov 07
[quote]Long overdue to teach Scottish history but please without the anti English slant in the history books I had to read. The truth this time especially about the role of the Scottish elite.[/quote]
Learning the facts about expansionist English Kings and their continual invasions, blockades and attempted genocides
against Scotland, Ireland and Wales is a historic fact and shouldnt be covered up to spare the blushes of present generations. On the contrary maybe if English children were taught these aspects of their history it may help them understand the complex nature of the Union they live under. It may also explain to them some of the natural mistrust of their good intentions that remains to the present day in the other peoples of the British Isles.
Long overdue to teach Scottish history but please without the anti English slant in the history books I had to read. The truth this time especially about the role of the Scottish elite.
Learning the facts about expansionist English Kings and their continual invasions, blockades and attempted genocides
against Scotland, Ireland and Wales is a historic fact and shouldnt be covered up to spare the blushes of present generations. On the contrary maybe if English children were taught these aspects of their history it may help them understand the complex nature of the Union they live under. It may also explain to them some of the natural mistrust of their good intentions that remains to the present day in the other peoples of the British Isles.
Posted by: James, Asia on 5:56am Tue 20 Nov 07
A major step in the right direction. For too long we've been cleansed of our own history. This will be one of the most significant developments on the road to independence, the unionists have long feared of us understanding who we really are, but by knowing our place in time we will secure our place in the future.
A major step in the right direction. For too long we've been cleansed of our own history. This will be one of the most significant developments on the road to independence, the unionists have long feared of us understanding who we really are, but by knowing our place in time we will secure our place in the future.
Posted by: Hawick, Lothians on 6:22am Tue 20 Nov 07
[quote][bold]BrianW[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Long overdue to teach Scottish history but please without the anti English slant in the history books I had to read. The truth this time especially about the role of the Scottish elite.[/quote] Learning the facts about expansionist English Kings and their continual invasions, blockades and attempted genocides against Scotland, Ireland and Wales is a historic fact and shouldnt be covered up to spare the blushes of present generations. On the contrary maybe if English children were taught these aspects of their history it may help them understand the complex nature of the Union they live under. It may also explain to them some of the natural mistrust of their good intentions that remains to the present day in the other peoples of the British Isles. [/quote] The "English" kings you talk about were not English, but Norman. The English living under the Normans and all the subsequent monarchies had no say in how they were governed in any way, shape or form. If medieval Scottish history, and even the Act of Union, are to be taught primarily in terms of nationality, then inevitably we will see distortions of the past, such as yours.
The English people have nothing to answer for as they had no control over what was done, just as they - like the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh - had no say in the expansionist policies which led to the development of the British Empire: an exercise developed and controlled by a ruling elite drawn from all corners of the British Isles
The idea that a working class kid in Liverpool, London or Newcastle has anything to feel guilty about what happened in wars between two sets of aristocrats 700 or 800 years ago is palpable nonsense.
There is a very big difference between being the King of England and an English king. That may be one place from which to start the teaching if we are to provide an accurate picture of what has happened on these islands over the last 1,500 years.
BrianW wrote:
Long overdue to teach Scottish history but please without the anti English slant in the history books I had to read. The truth this time especially about the role of the Scottish elite.
Learning the facts about expansionist English Kings and their continual invasions, blockades and attempted genocides against Scotland, Ireland and Wales is a historic fact and shouldnt be covered up to spare the blushes of present generations. On the contrary maybe if English children were taught these aspects of their history it may help them understand the complex nature of the Union they live under. It may also explain to them some of the natural mistrust of their good intentions that remains to the present day in the other peoples of the British Isles.
The "English" kings you talk about were not English, but Norman. The English living under the Normans and all the subsequent monarchies had no say in how they were governed in any way, shape or form. If medieval Scottish history, and even the Act of Union, are to be taught primarily in terms of nationality, then inevitably we will see distortions of the past, such as yours.
The English people have nothing to answer for as they had no control over what was done, just as they - like the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh - had no say in the expansionist policies which led to the development of the British Empire: an exercise developed and controlled by a ruling elite drawn from all corners of the British Isles
The idea that a working class kid in Liverpool, London or Newcastle has anything to feel guilty about what happened in wars between two sets of aristocrats 700 or 800 years ago is palpable nonsense.
There is a very big difference between being the King of England and an English king. That may be one place from which to start the teaching if we are to provide an accurate picture of what has happened on these islands over the last 1,500 years.
Posted by: jack turnbull, perth, western australia on 6:26am Tue 20 Nov 07
Thank goodness Scottish children will now have to learn their own history, and this should be supported by the SNP. Scottish Labour would never allow such teaching in case it was viewed as being supportive of independence.
I was born in 1941 and although we touched on Wallace and Bruce at school in Glasgow, we were never made aware that Scotland had its own royal lineage starting in 800AD, around the same time as Englands.
At a party in Toronto several years ago, someone mentioned that they had read a Nigel Tranter novel and three others of us said that we had done the same. None of us knew about the Scottish lineage and we all deplored the fact that we were kept in ignorance. We moved on and read history books to address this gap. Shame on the Scottish educators and politicians of the time.
Scotland and England had lived in relative peace until the wars of independence when Edward I crossed the border and massacred the thousands of residents of of Scotland's biggest royal burgh and seaport, namely Berwick-on -Tweed. He then made it an English borough and though the Scots did get it back several times, it still remains the only Scottish burgh not regained.
Incidentally, in additional to losing Berwick at that time, the Isle of Man, which was part of the Scottish realm was also lost.
We should be aware of our ancient history, but let the curriculum include the Scottish enlightenment, modern Scottish history and the country's massive contribution to the U.K., europe and the world.
However, some might fear boosting Scottish pride in case it might have unwanted consequences?
Thank goodness Scottish children will now have to learn their own history, and this should be supported by the SNP. Scottish Labour would never allow such teaching in case it was viewed as being supportive of independence.
I was born in 1941 and although we touched on Wallace and Bruce at school in Glasgow, we were never made aware that Scotland had its own royal lineage starting in 800AD, around the same time as Englands.
At a party in Toronto several years ago, someone mentioned that they had read a Nigel Tranter novel and three others of us said that we had done the same. None of us knew about the Scottish lineage and we all deplored the fact that we were kept in ignorance. We moved on and read history books to address this gap. Shame on the Scottish educators and politicians of the time.
Scotland and England had lived in relative peace until the wars of independence when Edward I crossed the border and massacred the thousands of residents of of Scotland's biggest royal burgh and seaport, namely Berwick-on -Tweed. He then made it an English borough and though the Scots did get it back several times, it still remains the only Scottish burgh not regained.
Incidentally, in additional to losing Berwick at that time, the Isle of Man, which was part of the Scottish realm was also lost.
We should be aware of our ancient history, but let the curriculum include the Scottish enlightenment, modern Scottish history and the country's massive contribution to the U.K., europe and the world.
However, some might fear boosting Scottish pride in case it might have unwanted consequences?
Posted by: Derick fae Yell, The Hoose on 6:47am Tue 20 Nov 07
Here's a couple of suggestions for subjects (or actually for MSc topics if any students need one)
1 How victorian Shetland Unionists - invariabley drawn from the ranks of landowning and middle classes - deliberately and conciously created the myth that Shetland is somehow not part of Scotland. Analagous to what Carson and his ilk did in Ireland, and I suspect a backlash against the Home Rule agitation of the time. A political project which continues to this day - witness the Strange Emergence of the Shetland Independent newsletter this year, being printed and distributed free to every household in the Islands by a new Shetlander, clearly with a budget to spend!!
2 - How the wave of 'Improvement' and clearance washed over Shetland as it did the rest of Scotland. Did you know that? You do now. See the following images showing the 'improvement'' of Garth in Quendale.
Garth - BEFORE
http://photos.shetla
nd-museum.org.uk/ind
ex.php?a=wordsearch&
s=item&key=Wczo1OiJn
YXJ0aCI7&pg=17
Garth: AFTER
http://photos.shetla
nd-museum.org.uk/ind
ex.php?a=advanced&s=
item&key=XYToyOntzOj
ExOiJERVNDUklQVElPTi
I7czo1OiJHQVJUSCI7cz
o2OiJQQVJJU0giO3M6MT
E6IkR1bnJvc3NuZXNzIj
t9&pg=7
Here's a couple of suggestions for subjects (or actually for MSc topics if any students need one)
1 How victorian Shetland Unionists - invariabley drawn from the ranks of landowning and middle classes - deliberately and conciously created the myth that Shetland is somehow not part of Scotland. Analagous to what Carson and his ilk did in Ireland, and I suspect a backlash against the Home Rule agitation of the time. A political project which continues to this day - witness the Strange Emergence of the Shetland Independent newsletter this year, being printed and distributed free to every household in the Islands by a new Shetlander, clearly with a budget to spend!!
2 - How the wave of 'Improvement' and clearance washed over Shetland as it did the rest of Scotland. Did you know that? You do now. See the following images showing the 'improvement'' of Garth in Quendale.
Garth - BEFORE
http://photos.shetla
nd-museum.org.uk/ind
ex.php?a=wordsearch&
s=item&key=Wczo1OiJn
YXJ0aCI7&pg=17
Garth: AFTER
http://photos.shetla
nd-museum.org.uk/ind
ex.php?a=advanced&s=
item&key=XYToyOntzOj
ExOiJERVNDUklQVElPTi
I7czo1OiJHQVJUSCI7cz
o2OiJQQVJJU0giO3M6MT
E6IkR1bnJvc3NuZXNzIj
t9&pg=7
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 6:49am Tue 20 Nov 07
A perfect example of the need to know your history is that there is a book that was written in scotland describing a pass and goal in a game of football in scotland years before it was supposedly invented in england. If we all were taught history like that, we might be a little more interested.
A perfect example of the need to know your history is that there is a book that was written in scotland describing a pass and goal in a game of football in scotland years before it was supposedly invented in england. If we all were taught history like that, we might be a little more interested.
Posted by: Derick fae Yell, The Hoose on 6:52am Tue 20 Nov 07
For the Garth Photos use Google to Shetland Museum and Archives pages photo library and use the advanced search subject 'Garth' and parish 'Dunrossness' . cheers
Derick son of a Crofter Man
For the Garth Photos use Google to Shetland Museum and Archives pages photo library and use the advanced search subject 'Garth' and parish 'Dunrossness' . cheers
Derick son of a Crofter Man
Posted by: Hawick, Lothians on 7:14am Tue 20 Nov 07
[quote][bold]jonny bond[/bold] wrote:
A perfect example of the need to know your history is that there is a book that was written in scotland describing a pass and goal in a game of football in scotland years before it was supposedly invented in england. If we all were taught history like that, we might be a little more interested.[/quote] No-one claims that football was invented in England. Versions of football have been played across the British Isles - and elsewhere - for years. What is undoubtedly true, however, is that the rules of association football were codified in England in the mid-19th century and it is that version of the game which is played throughout the world today.
jonny bond wrote:
A perfect example of the need to know your history is that there is a book that was written in scotland describing a pass and goal in a game of football in scotland years before it was supposedly invented in england. If we all were taught history like that, we might be a little more interested.
No-one claims that football was invented in England. Versions of football have been played across the British Isles - and elsewhere - for years. What is undoubtedly true, however, is that the rules of association football were codified in England in the mid-19th century and it is that version of the game which is played throughout the world today.
Posted by: alan, bearsden on 7:55am Tue 20 Nov 07
I wasn't taught scottish history at primary school - I was fed on pure english history for seven years. Worse, we weren't told it was all about england and not scotland. It was only later that I came to realise the treachery that had been perpetrated on me and I was very angry. When the same happened thirty years later with my children I complained to the school but it was like talking to the blackboard and just as much sense in the response. I don't mind scottish children being taught UK history from 1707, from a scottish viewpoint, but the earlier stuff should be about James 1 and co, not Henry 8. What other country teaches its children the history of another to the detriment of its own?
I wasn't taught scottish history at primary school - I was fed on pure english history for seven years. Worse, we weren't told it was all about england and not scotland. It was only later that I came to realise the treachery that had been perpetrated on me and I was very angry. When the same happened thirty years later with my children I complained to the school but it was like talking to the blackboard and just as much sense in the response. I don't mind scottish children being taught UK history from 1707, from a scottish viewpoint, but the earlier stuff should be about James 1 and co, not Henry 8. What other country teaches its children the history of another to the detriment of its own?
Posted by: R MacLeod, L on 8:23am Tue 20 Nov 07
Fantastic news I am delighted that Scottish History is being reintroduced into Scottish education.
Let us not miss the fact it was removed from the curriculum because Unionist Politicians wanted Scotland and all things Scottish airbrushed out of history.
I was born in 1952 and fortunately was taught Scottish history from an early age it was this fact that made me the first non unionist in my family .
Let us hope that the new generations like me embrace our history and have the pride and self belief in our nation to enable us once more to take our place amongst the nations of the world.
Fantastic news I am delighted that Scottish History is being reintroduced into Scottish education.
Let us not miss the fact it was removed from the curriculum because Unionist Politicians wanted Scotland and all things Scottish airbrushed out of history.
I was born in 1952 and fortunately was taught Scottish history from an early age it was this fact that made me the first non unionist in my family .
Let us hope that the new generations like me embrace our history and have the pride and self belief in our nation to enable us once more to take our place amongst the nations of the world.
Posted by: Andymac, Norway on 8:27am Tue 20 Nov 07
History defines a country and should always be taught, warts and all.
Those who revel in the possibility of the Scottish Wars of Independence being taught need also to look at subjects such as the Scottish Enlightenment and the clearances and our elites' role in establishing a union and empire and in supplying cannon fodder for the armies of that empire. A role which continues today.
Much of my knoweldge of Scottish history is self taught as I too got very little at school but what I do know of it is that there is much complexity in there and plenty irony as well. I recommend James Hunter's excellent book on how cleared highlanders emigrated to America and in turn became settlers who evicted native Americans in a land grab to see some of the complexities and pain caused on all side.
If this change in the curriculum allows for a more informed debate on our future status based on a better understandng of our past, then I'm all for it.
If it at least results in an understanding of how much crud is contained in Braveheart then so much the better too..
History defines a country and should always be taught, warts and all.
Those who revel in the possibility of the Scottish Wars of Independence being taught need also to look at subjects such as the Scottish Enlightenment and the clearances and our elites' role in establishing a union and empire and in supplying cannon fodder for the armies of that empire. A role which continues today.
Much of my knoweldge of Scottish history is self taught as I too got very little at school but what I do know of it is that there is much complexity in there and plenty irony as well. I recommend James Hunter's excellent book on how cleared highlanders emigrated to America and in turn became settlers who evicted native Americans in a land grab to see some of the complexities and pain caused on all side.
If this change in the curriculum allows for a more informed debate on our future status based on a better understandng of our past, then I'm all for it.
If it at least results in an understanding of how much crud is contained in Braveheart then so much the better too..
Posted by: Albert, Glasgow on 8:29am Tue 20 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Founding document[/bold] of the Scottish nation, the Declaration of Abroath was drawn up in 1320[/quote] Really? The Scottish nation was founded in the 9th century. The Declaration of Independence (diluted to "... of Arbroath" for the moment) could more correctly be described as an instrument of [italic]clare constat[/italic] .
And Hawick, stop being an apologist for the English. Yes, after 1066 the Normans spread out across England by force and were invited by the King of Scots to replicate their influence and power in Scotland. But, the Normans in England eventually were anglicised.
The process of anglicisation has been enacted on Scotland and the Scots for well over 700 years and has failed.
And Hawick, just to cheer your wee face up, the author of the Declaration of Independence is believed to be Bernard de Linton, an Englishman. But I may be wrong, I was educated in Scotland but did not get a Scottish education.
Founding document of the Scottish nation, the Declaration of Abroath was drawn up in 1320
Really? The Scottish nation was founded in the 9th century. The Declaration of Independence (diluted to "... of Arbroath" for the moment) could more correctly be described as an instrument of
clare constat .
And Hawick, stop being an apologist for the English. Yes, after 1066 the Normans spread out across England by force and were invited by the King of Scots to replicate their influence and power in Scotland. But, the Normans in England eventually were anglicised.
The process of anglicisation has been enacted on Scotland and the Scots for well over 700 years and has failed.
And Hawick, just to cheer your wee face up, the author of the Declaration of Independence is believed to be Bernard de Linton, an Englishman. But I may be wrong, I was educated in Scotland but did not get a Scottish education.
Posted by: Albert, Glasgow on 8:35am Tue 20 Nov 07
Andymac of Norway says, [quote]If it at least results in an understanding of how much crud is contained in Braveheart then so much the better too..[/quote] If you were in Scotland you would be able to revel in the adventures of [italic]The Tudors[/italic] on TV. The everyday story of an anglicised Welsh family.
Or you could buy a DVD of Kate Blongshett, an Australian portraying the murderer of Queen Mary as a glorious demi-godess.
When it comes to delivery of crud from England, our country gets far more than its Barnett formula share.
Andymac of Norway says,
If it at least results in an understanding of how much crud is contained in Braveheart then so much the better too..
If you were in Scotland you would be able to revel in the adventures of
The Tudors on TV. The everyday story of an anglicised Welsh family.
Or you could buy a DVD of Kate Blongshett, an Australian portraying the murderer of Queen Mary as a glorious demi-godess.
When it comes to delivery of crud from England, our country gets far more than its Barnett formula share.
Posted by: Danny, Hamilton on 8:37am Tue 20 Nov 07
Interesting the different experiences of education. I was born in 1948 and was taught nothing but Scottish history in primary school.
Interesting the different experiences of education. I was born in 1948 and was taught nothing but Scottish history in primary school.
Posted by: Hawick, Lothians on 8:43am Tue 20 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Albert[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Founding document[/bold] of the Scottish nation, the Declaration of Abroath was drawn up in 1320[/quote] Really? The Scottish nation was founded in the 9th century. The Declaration of Independence (diluted to "... of Arbroath" for the moment) could more correctly be described as an instrument of [italic]clare constat[/italic] . And Hawick, stop being an apologist for the English. Yes, after 1066 the Normans spread out across England by force and were invited by the King of Scots to replicate their influence and power in Scotland. But, the Normans in England eventually were anglicised. The process of anglicisation has been enacted on Scotland and the Scots for well over 700 years and has failed. And Hawick, just to cheer your wee face up, the author of the Declaration of Independence is believed to be Bernard de Linton, an Englishman. But I may be wrong, I was educated in Scotland but did not get a Scottish education.[/quote] Albert - can you explain the role of the average English person in the development of the English state? Can you explain the role of the average Scot in the development of the Scottish state?
if you are honest and you hae looked at the development of these islands you will see that nationality was an irrelevance - the wars that were fought were not fought on ethnic grounds, but between powerful elites, with the common people on both sides torched, murdered and dispossessed depending on who came out on top. If Scottish history is to be taught in Scottish schools in a way that sets the Scots and the English on different sides of an argument then that teaching will be fundamentally dishonest. However, an honest reaching of history would show that far from being sworn enemies, the aerage English person and the average Scot have - throughout history - had far more in common than is convenient from either an English or Scottish nationalist perspective.
I say this as someone whose family comes from the Borders - an area that both Crowns before 1603 had little regard for. And not much has changed since. I wonder if our history will be taught as well. Somehow, I doubt it.
Albert wrote:
Founding document of the Scottish nation, the Declaration of Abroath was drawn up in 1320
Really? The Scottish nation was founded in the 9th century. The Declaration of Independence (diluted to "... of Arbroath" for the moment) could more correctly be described as an instrument of clare constat . And Hawick, stop being an apologist for the English. Yes, after 1066 the Normans spread out across England by force and were invited by the King of Scots to replicate their influence and power in Scotland. But, the Normans in England eventually were anglicised. The process of anglicisation has been enacted on Scotland and the Scots for well over 700 years and has failed. And Hawick, just to cheer your wee face up, the author of the Declaration of Independence is believed to be Bernard de Linton, an Englishman. But I may be wrong, I was educated in Scotland but did not get a Scottish education.
Albert - can you explain the role of the average English person in the development of the English state? Can you explain the role of the average Scot in the development of the Scottish state?
if you are honest and you hae looked at the development of these islands you will see that nationality was an irrelevance - the wars that were fought were not fought on ethnic grounds, but between powerful elites, with the common people on both sides torched, murdered and dispossessed depending on who came out on top. If Scottish history is to be taught in Scottish schools in a way that sets the Scots and the English on different sides of an argument then that teaching will be fundamentally dishonest. However, an honest reaching of history would show that far from being sworn enemies, the aerage English person and the average Scot have - throughout history - had far more in common than is convenient from either an English or Scottish nationalist perspective.
I say this as someone whose family comes from the Borders - an area that both Crowns before 1603 had little regard for. And not much has changed since. I wonder if our history will be taught as well. Somehow, I doubt it.
Posted by: Hawick, Lothians on 8:45am Tue 20 Nov 07
Albert, your support for absolute monarchy and the entrenched rights of the aristocracy - just so long as they are connected to Scotland - is remarkably touching.
Albert, your support for absolute monarchy and the entrenched rights of the aristocracy - just so long as they are connected to Scotland - is remarkably touching.
Posted by: Old Fogey, Glasgow on 9:12am Tue 20 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Danny[/bold] wrote:
Interesting the different experiences of education. I was born in 1948 and was taught nothing but Scottish history in primary school.[/quote] I was born 1951 and (like the other guy born 1952) was taught Scottish History at primary, or at least we got to read out of a book that had stories from Scottish history ..Robert the Bruce, Flodden, Kate 'bar the Door', etc. Not real history but it gave a sense of the past of your own country. When I got to secondary school however, I don't recall any real Scottish history being taught.
Good to see it coming back and hopefully taught with a sense of the 'international' - not Scotland vs England but what life was like in Europe at the time ... for instance no medieval king was a nationalist he just wanted to expand his dynasty's possessions .. Bruce himself would have gone along with Edward 1 if he'd been supported in his claim to be king by the English.
But what was that about Scottish literature being dropped? Any more info on that?
Danny wrote:
Interesting the different experiences of education. I was born in 1948 and was taught nothing but Scottish history in primary school.
I was born 1951 and (like the other guy born 1952) was taught Scottish History at primary, or at least we got to read out of a book that had stories from Scottish history ..Robert the Bruce, Flodden, Kate 'bar the Door', etc. Not real history but it gave a sense of the past of your own country. When I got to secondary school however, I don't recall any real Scottish history being taught.
Good to see it coming back and hopefully taught with a sense of the 'international' - not Scotland vs England but what life was like in Europe at the time ... for instance no medieval king was a nationalist he just wanted to expand his dynasty's possessions .. Bruce himself would have gone along with Edward 1 if he'd been supported in his claim to be king by the English.
But what was that about Scottish literature being dropped? Any more info on that?
Posted by: scotleag on 9:31am Tue 20 Nov 07
There are a few on here who could do with going back to school - and oddly enough most of them are Nats.
Albert Glasgow needs a more contemporary education as he thinks American made TV series and multi-national films are somehow "English"
Brian D Finch, Brian Hill, James Asia, think no Scottish history was taught in schools while Martin, Dundee, Dougie Douglas (must be a boring election campaign in Australia if this the most interesting topic of the day for him), Brian W prefer conspiracy theories. So does Jack Turnbull another no interest in what's happening in his chosen country of abode who comes out with this pearl "Scottish Labour would never allow such teaching in case it was viewed as being supportive of independence."
Like many others on here I was taught Scottish History all the way through my school days - from Macbeth through to the Act of Union and beyond.l It wasn't suppressed by anybody nor did it turn me into a Nationalist who fled Scotland at the first opportunity.
Incidentally, the object of teaching history shouldn't be to determine anyone's politics - most of us are capable of making our own minds up - but to impart an understanding of the past and its role in how we arrived at the present.
Governments came and went and local authorities changed hands during my schooldays but I must say I never noticed any attempt to "suppress" learning. I think the desire of some Nats to control the content and slant is a dangerous road to go down.
In any case the most important person in the teaching of history is not an cabinet minister, an Mp, an MSP or a local bureuacrat - it is the teacher. A good teacher (and I was fortunate to have several) can impart a love of history which lasts for life.
The Nats are right on one score though. Certain areas are neglected. I went through my school days thinking Bonnie Prince Charlie was some kind of freedom fighter, not an Italian aristo out to claim the BRITISH throne for his daddy. Too much speed bonnie boat rubbish. I found out years later that the part of Scotland I hail from had a public holiday to CELEBRATE Culloden.
William Alexander: The "England expects" quote is from Trafalgar - 1805, not 1812
There are a few on here who could do with going back to school - and oddly enough most of them are Nats.
Albert Glasgow needs a more contemporary education as he thinks American made TV series and multi-national films are somehow "English"
Brian D Finch, Brian Hill, James Asia, think no Scottish history was taught in schools while Martin, Dundee, Dougie Douglas (must be a boring election campaign in Australia if this the most interesting topic of the day for him), Brian W prefer conspiracy theories. So does Jack Turnbull another no interest in what's happening in his chosen country of abode who comes out with this pearl "Scottish Labour would never allow such teaching in case it was viewed as being supportive of independence."
Like many others on here I was taught Scottish History all the way through my school days - from Macbeth through to the Act of Union and beyond.l It wasn't suppressed by anybody nor did it turn me into a Nationalist who fled Scotland at the first opportunity.
Incidentally, the object of teaching history shouldn't be to determine anyone's politics - most of us are capable of making our own minds up - but to impart an understanding of the past and its role in how we arrived at the present.
Governments came and went and local authorities changed hands during my schooldays but I must say I never noticed any attempt to "suppress" learning. I think the desire of some Nats to control the content and slant is a dangerous road to go down.
In any case the most important person in the teaching of history is not an cabinet minister, an Mp, an MSP or a local bureuacrat - it is the teacher. A good teacher (and I was fortunate to have several) can impart a love of history which lasts for life.
The Nats are right on one score though. Certain areas are neglected. I went through my school days thinking Bonnie Prince Charlie was some kind of freedom fighter, not an Italian aristo out to claim the BRITISH throne for his daddy. Too much speed bonnie boat rubbish. I found out years later that the part of Scotland I hail from had a public holiday to CELEBRATE Culloden.
William Alexander: The "England expects" quote is from Trafalgar - 1805, not 1812
Posted by: Albert, Glasgow on 9:35am Tue 20 Nov 07
Hawick,
I too have Borders ancestry, Duns to be exact. You are correct in much of what you say but nationality is not an irrelevance.
The commonality of Scots and English can be said about all peoples of the world. The problem in this island is that it is used as a reason for the anglicisation of Scotland.
As for our Borders ancestry, I too welcome a light being shone on the likes of Sir Walter Scott. That great unionist's myths about the Border reivers need to be assessed and analysed. These romantic creatures were a bunch of Mafia gangsters, a very uncomfortable fact for most Borderers (on either side) today.
And you misread my thoughts on royalty and elites, perhaps influenced by my Anglo-Germanic [italic]nom-de-plume[/italic] (Gosh! I sound so European.)
I'm a republican and at every opportunity I get I try to expose the myth of the noble families of Scotland.
One last word before I go to work. Association football (hence soccer) may have started in England but West Brom was started by a Scot whose two favourite teams then were Rangers and Hearts - look at West Brom's colours. As a sideline, Rangers used to be known as the [italic]Light Blues[/italic] until a malign influence changed that to royal blue and dropped the "Aye" from their slogan, "Aye ready" - anglicisation, or what?
Hawick,
I too have Borders ancestry, Duns to be exact. You are correct in much of what you say but nationality is not an irrelevance.
The commonality of Scots and English can be said about all peoples of the world. The problem in this island is that it is used as a reason for the anglicisation of Scotland.
As for our Borders ancestry, I too welcome a light being shone on the likes of Sir Walter Scott. That great unionist's myths about the Border reivers need to be assessed and analysed. These romantic creatures were a bunch of Mafia gangsters, a very uncomfortable fact for most Borderers (on either side) today.
And you misread my thoughts on royalty and elites, perhaps influenced by my Anglo-Germanic
nom-de-plume (Gosh! I sound so European.)
I'm a republican and at every opportunity I get I try to expose the myth of the noble families of Scotland.
One last word before I go to work. Association football (hence soccer) may have started in England but West Brom was started by a Scot whose two favourite teams then were Rangers and Hearts - look at West Brom's colours. As a sideline, Rangers used to be known as the
Light Blues until a malign influence changed that to royal blue and dropped the "Aye" from their slogan, "Aye ready" - anglicisation, or what?
Posted by: Rab the Ranter, Carluke on 9:36am Tue 20 Nov 07
I gave up on history after two years at high school. Now I am interested again. I recommend "The Age of Arthur, a History of the British Isles from 350 to 650" by John Morris. In 350 all South of the Wall were Roman Citizens whom he calls the British who spoke Welsh (p-Celtic) and their enemies were the Picts in the North (speaking Pictish ?), the Scots in Ireland who spoke Gaelic (q-Celtic)and the English on the Continent (who spoke Germanic tongues.
Much later the Scots and Picts were united under Kenneth McAlpine in 843 and Scotland came into being.
Yes I had heard of this in Primary School like Danny, Hamilton!
Know your roots!
I gave up on history after two years at high school. Now I am interested again. I recommend "The Age of Arthur, a History of the British Isles from 350 to 650" by John Morris. In 350 all South of the Wall were Roman Citizens whom he calls the British who spoke Welsh (p-Celtic) and their enemies were the Picts in the North (speaking Pictish ?), the Scots in Ireland who spoke Gaelic (q-Celtic)and the English on the Continent (who spoke Germanic tongues.
Much later the Scots and Picts were united under Kenneth McAlpine in 843 and Scotland came into being.
Yes I had heard of this in Primary School like Danny, Hamilton!
Know your roots!
Posted by: freeman on 9:37am Tue 20 Nov 07
I only started learning about Scotland, its history and its culture, when I left school after completing sixth year. I couldn't study at university what I wanted to study - Scotland, my country.
I only started learning about Scotland, its history and its culture, when I left school after completing sixth year. I couldn't study at university what I wanted to study - Scotland, my country.
Posted by: scotleag on 9:44am Tue 20 Nov 07
Albert Glasgow - the man who thinks a UK-French co-financed film directed by a Pakistani and starring an Australian is "English" and that an American made TV series starring an Irishman and an Australian is also "English" says:
"West Brom was started by a Scot whose two favourite teams then were Rangers and Hearts"
Nonsense. WBA were formed by workers from Salter's spring factory. Their first committee comprised Salter himself, a local schoolmaster and a congregationalist minister.
In fact West Brom were the first team to win the FA Cup that DID'NT have a Scot in their side.
Albert Glasgow - the man who thinks a UK-French co-financed film directed by a Pakistani and starring an Australian is "English" and that an American made TV series starring an Irishman and an Australian is also "English" says:
"West Brom was started by a Scot whose two favourite teams then were Rangers and Hearts"
Nonsense. WBA were formed by workers from Salter's spring factory. Their first committee comprised Salter himself, a local schoolmaster and a congregationalist minister.
In fact West Brom were the first team to win the FA Cup that DID'NT have a Scot in their side.
Posted by: Hawick, Lothians on 9:50am Tue 20 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Albert[/bold] wrote:
Hawick, I too have Borders ancestry, Duns to be exact. You are correct in much of what you say but nationality is not an irrelevance. The commonality of Scots and English can be said about all peoples of the world. The problem in this island is that it is used as a reason for the anglicisation of Scotland. As for our Borders ancestry, I too welcome a light being shone on the likes of Sir Walter Scott. That great unionist's myths about the Border reivers need to be assessed and analysed. These romantic creatures were a bunch of Mafia gangsters, a very uncomfortable fact for most Borderers (on either side) today. And you misread my thoughts on royalty and elites, perhaps influenced by my Anglo-Germanic [italic]nom-de-plume[/italic] (Gosh! I sound so European.) I'm a republican and at every opportunity I get I try to expose the myth of the noble families of Scotland. One last word before I go to work. Association football (hence soccer) may have started in England but West Brom was started by a Scot whose two favourite teams then were Rangers and Hearts - look at West Brom's colours. As a sideline, Rangers used to be known as the [italic]Light Blues[/italic] until a malign influence changed that to royal blue and dropped the "Aye" from their slogan, "Aye ready" - anglicisation, or what?[/quote] Albert - the Borders were anglicised long, long ago. You and I have far more in common with the folk of Northumberland than we do with the folk of Skye or Caithness.
The Border Reivers in England and Scotland were murderous chancers who took advantage of the no man's land in which they lived. On that we can agree.
For what it's worth, I agree completely with Scotsleag.
Albert wrote:
Hawick, I too have Borders ancestry, Duns to be exact. You are correct in much of what you say but nationality is not an irrelevance. The commonality of Scots and English can be said about all peoples of the world. The problem in this island is that it is used as a reason for the anglicisation of Scotland. As for our Borders ancestry, I too welcome a light being shone on the likes of Sir Walter Scott. That great unionist's myths about the Border reivers need to be assessed and analysed. These romantic creatures were a bunch of Mafia gangsters, a very uncomfortable fact for most Borderers (on either side) today. And you misread my thoughts on royalty and elites, perhaps influenced by my Anglo-Germanic nom-de-plume (Gosh! I sound so European.) I'm a republican and at every opportunity I get I try to expose the myth of the noble families of Scotland. One last word before I go to work. Association football (hence soccer) may have started in England but West Brom was started by a Scot whose two favourite teams then were Rangers and Hearts - look at West Brom's colours. As a sideline, Rangers used to be known as the Light Blues until a malign influence changed that to royal blue and dropped the "Aye" from their slogan, "Aye ready" - anglicisation, or what?
Albert - the Borders were anglicised long, long ago. You and I have far more in common with the folk of Northumberland than we do with the folk of Skye or Caithness.
The Border Reivers in England and Scotland were murderous chancers who took advantage of the no man's land in which they lived. On that we can agree.
For what it's worth, I agree completely with Scotsleag.
Posted by: Martin Graham, London on 10:01am Tue 20 Nov 07
"It's about time."?
I'm sorry, is this a news report or an editorial comment?
I realise the distinction doesn't hold water in the Sun or the Record, but I expected higher thngs of the Herald. Plainly I am just being terribly old fashioned
"It's about time."?
I'm sorry, is this a news report or an editorial comment?
I realise the distinction doesn't hold water in the Sun or the Record, but I expected higher thngs of the Herald. Plainly I am just being terribly old fashioned
Posted by: Heederum - Hoderum, HIGH HORSE on 10:07am Tue 20 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Hawick[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]BrianW[/bold] wrote: [quote]Long overdue to teach Scottish history but please without the anti English slant in the history books I had to read. The truth this time especially about the role of the Scottish elite.[/quote] Learning the facts about expansionist English Kings and their continual invasions, blockades and attempted genocides against Scotland, Ireland and Wales is a historic fact and shouldnt be covered up to spare the blushes of present generations. On the contrary maybe if English children were taught these aspects of their history it may help them understand the complex nature of the Union they live under. It may also explain to them some of the natural mistrust of their good intentions that remains to the present day in the other peoples of the British Isles. [/quote] The "English" kings you talk about were not English, but Norman. The English living under the Normans and all the subsequent monarchies had no say in how they were governed in any way, shape or form. If medieval Scottish history, and even the Act of Union, are to be taught primarily in terms of nationality, then inevitably we will see distortions of the past, such as yours. The English people have nothing to answer for as they had no control over what was done, just as they - like the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh - had no say in the expansionist policies which led to the development of the British Empire: an exercise developed and controlled by a ruling elite drawn from all corners of the British Isles The idea that a working class kid in Liverpool, London or Newcastle has anything to feel guilty about what happened in wars between two sets of aristocrats 700 or 800 years ago is palpable nonsense. There is a very big difference between being the King of England and an English king. That may be one place from which to start the teaching if we are to provide an accurate picture of what has happened on these islands over the last 1,500 years. [/quote] HAWICK
No-one is asking any Liverpudlian kid to feel guilty about ANYTHING Sir.......the issue at hand is the welcome introduction of Scots history into Scots schools for Scots pupils. How anyone can be offended at that truly escapes me..........it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with blaming modern generations for the deeds of their forefathers leaders. However, you fall into VERY hot water if you do your OWN re-write of history by claiming erroneosly that it was all down to the Normans. If you knew ANYTHING about history you'd have seen what manifest NONSENSE that is.
It has been a subject of much resentment over the years that our children (aye, and it happened in my own schooldays) are/were taight muckle merr about Henry 5th, Charles2nd, and Oliver Cromwell etc rather than our indigenous history. This was and is done for political reasons, as part of the long standing but now dis-credited effort to turn us all into "North Britons" (was there EVER a more hated soubriquet?) by those who STILL rule us...........The GOOD NEWS however Sir, is that the end of such is in sight.
IT'S COMIN' YET FUR A' THAT !!
Hawick wrote:
BrianW wrote: Long overdue to teach Scottish history but please without the anti English slant in the history books I had to read. The truth this time especially about the role of the Scottish elite.
Learning the facts about expansionist English Kings and their continual invasions, blockades and attempted genocides against Scotland, Ireland and Wales is a historic fact and shouldnt be covered up to spare the blushes of present generations. On the contrary maybe if English children were taught these aspects of their history it may help them understand the complex nature of the Union they live under. It may also explain to them some of the natural mistrust of their good intentions that remains to the present day in the other peoples of the British Isles.
The "English" kings you talk about were not English, but Norman. The English living under the Normans and all the subsequent monarchies had no say in how they were governed in any way, shape or form. If medieval Scottish history, and even the Act of Union, are to be taught primarily in terms of nationality, then inevitably we will see distortions of the past, such as yours. The English people have nothing to answer for as they had no control over what was done, just as they - like the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh - had no say in the expansionist policies which led to the development of the British Empire: an exercise developed and controlled by a ruling elite drawn from all corners of the British Isles The idea that a working class kid in Liverpool, London or Newcastle has anything to feel guilty about what happened in wars between two sets of aristocrats 700 or 800 years ago is palpable nonsense. There is a very big difference between being the King of England and an English king. That may be one place from which to start the teaching if we are to provide an accurate picture of what has happened on these islands over the last 1,500 years.
HAWICK
No-one is asking any Liverpudlian kid to feel guilty about ANYTHING Sir.......the issue at hand is the welcome introduction of Scots history into Scots schools for Scots pupils. How anyone can be offended at that truly escapes me..........it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with blaming modern generations for the deeds of their forefathers leaders. However, you fall into VERY hot water if you do your OWN re-write of history by claiming erroneosly that it was all down to the Normans. If you knew ANYTHING about history you'd have seen what manifest NONSENSE that is.
It has been a subject of much resentment over the years that our children (aye, and it happened in my own schooldays) are/were taight muckle merr about Henry 5th, Charles2nd, and Oliver Cromwell etc rather than our indigenous history. This was and is done for political reasons, as part of the long standing but now dis-credited effort to turn us all into "North Britons" (was there EVER a more hated soubriquet?) by those who STILL rule us...........The GOOD NEWS however Sir, is that the end of such is in sight.
IT'S COMIN' YET FUR A' THAT !!
Posted by: mr burns on 10:14am Tue 20 Nov 07
Err...I studied south of the border and at A level history there was no English history course, just "British History". Why make Scottish history compulsory?!
Err...I studied south of the border and at A level history there was no English history course, just "British History". Why make Scottish history compulsory?!
Posted by: Hawick, Lothians on 10:16am Tue 20 Nov 07
Heederum - Great rant, but not much to d
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (147)
