Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


The history every one of us should know

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 February 2008
Education expert unveils school blueprint to FIONA MACLEOD
WE MAY be well versed in the Viking invasion and the exploits of William Wallace, but we know far too little about what went on in between, one of Scotland's most eminent historians warned yesterday.

The lack of knowledge about our own history is the Scots' shameful secret, and too many people are left with a "pop-up book" understanding of the country's past.

The lack of knowledge about our own history is the Scots' shameful secret, and too many people are left with a "pop-up book" understanding of the country's past.
Professor Tom Devine, who is advising Fiona Hyslop, the Education Secretary, on the history curriculum in schools, says it should be taught more sequentially and teaching a dozen key topics could help to fill in the glaring gaps in our knowledge.

He said: "There's been a general tendency in Scottish schools, certainly until you reach the age of 14, especially in years one and two of the secondary, to go for the Second World War, Hitler and all that sort of thing, because undoubtedly children are intrigued by that."

He believes the amount of time children study history in the first two years of secondary should be doubled and the subject should be compulsory up to the age of 16 to allow more time for Scottish history.

"One of the chief intellectual or educational advantages of history is to get kids to understand change over time which the pop-up stuff doesn't," he said. "They might do the Highland Clearances, then they might go back in two years' time to the Vikings.

"A classic example is the analysis carried out by Sidney Wood at the Northern College of Education about three or four years ago, where 46 per cent of those sampled thought we had been conquered by England.

"Almost certainly, that is because those kids were exposed to the wars of independence, but then they didn't find out what had happened after it.

"They didn't find out that Wallace was a hero to 19th-century Scots not because of Braveheartism – the type we have today – but because he and Bruce and others saved Scotland from conquest, allowing them to enter a partnership union, not an Irish-type union by conquest, in 1707."

Prof Devine, of Edinburgh University, warned that three Scottish schools have already stopped teaching history completely.

He said: "Most countries recognise that history is a fundamental subject for the shaping of the citizenry, and that's why they give it such significance. A substantial increase in the amount of time available is needed to avoid the marginalisation of Scottish history and avoid the parochialism of teaching mostly Scottish history, because all small-country history has got to be taught within a context of international comparisons and contexts.

"There's about a dozen major themes that an educated Scot should know about in terms of the major forces that have helped to evolve the modern nation. Obviously, you could put a lot more stuff in there, but if you had to select, then these, to me as a historian of Scotland, are the key influences on the development of the modern nation."

MEDIEVAL LIFE
ALL aspects of Scottish society in this period, from how the nation was structured to religion and the ideas held by society then, should be crucial knowledge for modern Scots, according to Professor Devine. Understanding overseas connections at this time of early seafaring exploration around the world is also important in analysing Scotland's historical relationships with the international community.

THE ENLIGHTENMENT
THIS period of intense intellectual creation and invention saw Scotland leading the world in "enlightened" thinking and scientific endeavour. Professor Devine is keen that everyone knows that from this period emerged such luminaries as philosopher David Hume, economist Adam Smith and poet Robert Burns.

He said Scots should realise the enormous contribution our nation has made to the world.

UNION
THE Act of Union in 1707 formally joined Scotland and England as the UK.

However, the two nations had been ruled by a shared monarch since 1603 when James VI of Scotland became James I of England.

Professor Devine said it is crucial today's Scots understand the union was voted for by the then Scottish parliament and not a successful English invasion as many falsely believe.

FIRST WORLD WAR
PROFESSOR Devine believes the First World War acted as the divide between the highly successful global Scotland in the 19th century and the more challenging position in which Scotland found itself in the 20th century.

He said today's Scots should understand their nation's role in the conflict, learn about the terrible price the nation paid, and know how the war caused both the death of a generation and economic depression.

INDEPENDENCE WARS
THE wars fought between England and Scotland in the 13th and 14th centuries are vital to understanding the background to formation of the United Kingdom.

Professor Devine believes modern Scots should understand how the Battle of Bannockburn and the Declaration of Arbroath followed attempted invasion by the English and how they contributed to Scotland retaining its independent status and paved the way to a peaceful Union.

EMIGRATION
THE Industrial Revolution was one of the reasons for the massive rise in the levels of emigration. But also the moves of wealthy landowners to remove unprofitable crofters from their land, known as the Highland Clearances, meant many Scots left the country to find a better future. As a result, states Professor Devine, Scots have left their stamp around the world and their global influence is a key part of understanding our place on the planet.

DEVOLUTION
RECENT years have been as important to the story of Scotland's history as were the Vikings and their descendants.

Professor Devine is of the opinion that understanding the road to devolution and the nationalist dimension are crucial.

He believes the transformation of Scotland from 1980 to the present has seen the country reinvent itself to a degree unparalleled since the Industrial Revolution.

MAKING OF THE NATION
STUDY of Scotland's earliest inhabitants is crucial, believes Professor Devine, to understanding how the nation was formed.

From those who populated the Neolithic settlement of Skara Brae in around 3200 BC to 2200BC on Orkney, to the tribal groupings, the invading Romans who built Hadrian's Wall in AD122, the Vikings and later the Normans – they can all help us understand our country's past.

THE WORLD
PROFESSOR Devine is adamant Scotland and its people should understand how their nation contributed to world history and the economy, whether that be in a positive or a shameful way.

He said Scotland had a role to play in the slave and tobacco trade which brought great wealth to Glasgow. And he added that the nation's role in the world has helped generate its power and made Scotland the nation it is today.

REFORMATION
THE Scottish Reformation marked the country's break with Catholicism and the authority of the Pope in the 16th century in favour of a Protestant church. Professor Devine believes knowing about the Reformation of religion is fundamental to understanding modern Scotland and its effect on monarchy and independence.

Many of the political battles relating to succession and independence revolved around a potential monarch's religion.

INDUSTRIALISATION
PROFESSOR Devine believes that as Scotland was the second industrialised nation, the implications for society are vital to its history. The way of life of many Scots changed as the nation transformed from an agricultural economy to an industrial one. The period from the late 18th century onwards saw huge population movements to cities where work was concentrated, thanks to great strides in engineering and steam technology.

EMPIRE
THE British Empire provided huge opportunities for Scots to contribute to the success of Britain. Professor Devine believes study of Empire would be a "tremendous antidote" and provide a balance to what he calls the "victim history" which focuses on the Scots as victims. He cites the Highland Clearances as an example. He said study of Empire would demonstrate other nationalities were, in fact, the victims.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 February 2008 12:29 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

14/02/2008 00:03:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Conan the Librarian™,

14/02/2008 00:11:46
Scottish history tends to be taught by Scotland's interaction with England.

Wars of Independence.Jamie Saxt(James I)Mary, Queen of Scots(Why not just Queen Mary?)The Jacobite Rebellions etc. ad nauseam.
3

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 14/02/2008 00:53:19
It is my opinion that an earlier starting point would be necessary, what is more alluring that a circle of standing stones or a chambered cairn on a winter solstice?

The intelligence of seafarers.

The Druid and their control of the Western seaboard of Europe and not the romanticised anglisised new-age nonsense that most people think of.

The Celts absorption of the Druidic ways and the flowering of a most beautiful, high culture and high intelligence.

The music, the art and the stories - not taught in an isolated manner as a "history subject" but in a fully inclusive way of life.

There are many branches.... maths, astronomy, physics, archeology, navigation, herbalism, geology, craft, morals, respect, wisdom.




4

Gone Native,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 01:30:18
This could potentially be the single most important step in Scotland's recent history.
5

donald,

glasgow 14/02/2008 02:32:18
"Professor Devine believes modern Scots should understand how the Battle of Bannockburn and the Declaration of Arbroath followed attempted invasion by the English and how they contributed to Scotland retaining its independent status and paved the way to a peaceful Union."

What "Union"? What "Peace"? What tripe.
6

Tom in Belmont,

Belmont 14/02/2008 02:56:14
As some of these posts already indicate, keeping the teaching of history free from political propaganda will be as hard for you as it is for us.
Two thoughts from this old teacher:
1. If you want to grab the kid's interest with any history, teaching something of the literature and art of the period alongside it. Have them recite some of the old makars' works or even re-enact a clan or medieval duel (works wonders for the boys!).
2. In 1998 I visited St. Machar's in Aberdeen and recall the ceiling bosses with the arms of kings and nations from all over medieval Europe. Even then Scotland was part of a larger culture, influenced by friend and foe alike. The teaching of your history should reflect consciousness of that unity.
Best of luck.
7

Black & White Triumph,

Greehill road.....soon 14/02/2008 03:05:37
Great stuff, during my O levels and highers I repeatedly asked why we could not study Scottish history and was instead fed a constant diet of Pitt the younger etc etc.
Reasoned debate is what Prof Tom Devine has brought here and it is a worthy topic not to be lightly scoffed at.
8

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 14/02/2008 04:19:07
#8 didn't they also tell you about Pitt's right hand man the Scot Henry Dundas, Secretary of War, First Lord of the Admiralty, and the fact he was impeached and acqitted, where did you go to school.
9

,

14/02/2008 05:01:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Black & White Triumph,

Greenhill Road.....soon 14/02/2008 05:04:24
#8

Actually they did not but did get a lot of Lord George Murray and his antics.

not enough room on here to list my academia illustria but have to go now and sweep chimneys
11

Richardinho,

14/02/2008 05:21:54
Disagree that the second world war is interesting. Personally I found it dull as dishwater at school and I'm sick of the almost nightly documentarys we seem to be subjected to on it on tv.
It is presented as some kind of 'glorious success'-a huge lie; It is probably the greates disaster to befall the human race after the Black death-and even that had some good effects coming as a consequence.

Fairly sensible list all in all from Tom Devine. Not a great deal different as a matter of fact from the current curriculum apart from the addition of the Wars of Independence which has been left out of school teachings for political reasons for decades now.
12

Stephen fae Scotland,

Folsom & Edinburgh 14/02/2008 05:55:48
As great a realization as this is - that history is utterly essential to a complete education and basic to a critical and informed citizenry - what rational person would trust the Scottish Taliban with revamping the curriculum?

Salmond on Scotland - "It was the English that did it - it wiz, I saw them!"
13

Stephen fae Scotland,

Folsom & Edinburgh 14/02/2008 06:05:21
Also - just a thought - isn't this just about the shortest comment chain ever? Does that say something about the level of interest in this subject? All that makes me concerned about a Scot-Nat-Taliban takeover of Scottish history without sufficient scrutiny.
14

MR.CYNICAL,

a happy place 14/02/2008 06:08:10
history is in the past school kids prefer modern studies
15

Pilrig.,

Livingston 14/02/2008 06:12:45
15 - Henry Ford lives !
16

Black & White Triumph,

Greenhill Road....soon 14/02/2008 06:15:56
#13 n 14

what exaxctly are you afraid of... Fortuately we live in a democracy whatever your cries of the Scottish Taliban which is poor in the extreme we don't kill and main our own.
When sufficient of the Scottish electorate vote for independence it will happen or will you start a taliban type resistance
17

Pilrig.,

Livingston 14/02/2008 06:17:36
13 & 14 - compare the upgrading of history, Scottish and otherwise, with the downgrading of the subject by the previous Nu Lab-Lib Dem administration.
18

An Taghan,

14/02/2008 06:20:19
What is this utter tosh? I'm willing to bet my left leg that Devine did not say anything of the sort.

"INDEPENDENCE WARS
THE wars fought between England and Scotland in the 13th and 14th centuries are vital to understanding the background to formation of the United Kingdom.

Professor Devine believes modern Scots should understand how the Battle of Bannockburn and the Declaration of Arbroath followed attempted invasion by the English and how they contributed to Scotland retaining its independent status and paved the way to a peaceful Union."

Are you trying to tell us, you utter fool, that Wallace et al had, at the back of their minds, a view to ensuring we entered a fairer Union in four hundred years time when they died for their country? It was nothing yo do with independence alone, no?
19

Saul Tyre,

Germany 14/02/2008 06:31:34
#19

How true An Taghan, how very true!
20

An Beal Bacht,

14/02/2008 06:45:33
10 - Scott Webb, 14/02/2008 05:01:46
Good Vid Bud.

Aye - history is intriguing. As AM2 says history can be politicized. It seems to me though that the distortion generated by Hollywood and the British media, the dumbing down as practiced in primary and secondary education, and the covering up as evidenced by the McCrone report is much more political.
21

An Beal Bacht,

14/02/2008 06:57:33
19 - An Taghan, 14/02/2008 06:20:19

I think he's saying that by maintaining our independence through numerous invasions Scotland was able to do a deal in the end. On the face of it, this argument has some validity. At the time of union Scotland was bankrupt. The English offer a deal - rather like the EU today - so
how could we refuse. And, as he points out, the Irish weren't so lucky.

"They didn't find out that Wallace was a hero to 19th-century Scots not because of Braveheartism – the type we have today – but because he and Bruce and others saved Scotland from conquest, allowing them to enter a partnership union, not an Irish-type union by conquest, in 1707."

That's his analysis anyway. I read it a little differently.
22

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 07:10:45
Once more the Britnats open their posts with negatives, and attacks on an SNP Scottish Government even though the SNP Scottish Government enjoys a preferred Government status of 82 % satisfaction. After all the SNP chose the path of a peaceful, democratic way of achieving their legitimate goal of securing freedom from a Contract of Union, that the Scottish People never ever got the chance to vote for.

A bit like Gordon Browns attempt to sign the United Kingdoms freedom without giving the People the right to decide. Of course that is because he fears the People may not wish to accept the terms. Indeed Gordon Brown is touched by the influence of the Stalinists, who do not believe in free speech or the Peoples right to choose. My god the man wasnt even elected by the United Kingdoms People at an open and fair general election. We all know that this man has little or no chance of ever being elected by his peers. He shall not go to the ball, and the slipper will never fit this very unfit for purpose Prime Minister of the remains of the United Kingdom left after we Scots go our own way and run our own race.
23

Louis Catorze,

14/02/2008 07:29:57
"What "Union"? What "Peace"? What tripe.

#6.....the Union between Scotland and England presumably. Or does your blinkered view deny this ever happened?
And peace? I'd say, given its past, 250 odd years of peace in Scotland is a good thing, if not a miracle.

It's because of tedious people like yourself that Scotland isn't mature enough for Independence yet.
24

John S,

14/02/2008 07:42:18
Here am I thinking that the Battle of Culloden and the events which followed paved the way to a peaceful Union.
25

TREV,

Poland 14/02/2008 07:42:55
About time!

I once asked a friend why Scottish history only seemed to go as far as the 1745 and he replied, "Because after that other people strted writing it for us".
26

morris,

edinburgh 14/02/2008 07:57:14
3

Of course another possibility is that these highly qualified people KNOW what they are talking about where as you just think you do,and the political bias already exists in what little history has been taught in Scotland. This would tie in with what I have been asured was/is the case by many history teachers.
Heaven forbid that we should listen to biased/informed opinion before yours, which of course only falls into the latter category.
You remind me of another Ulsterman I knew in Glasgow who claimed to be an authority on history. He turned out to be a lorry driver and his knowledge of History covered the Battle of the Boyne! Nothing new there then!

You are in danger of defeating yourself here,and come accross as the only person in Scotland qualified to teach history.Aye that will be richt!
27

morris,

edinburgh 14/02/2008 08:07:56
13

More to the point ,what kind of idiot would presume that what he was taught is correct, and Salmond would a) interfere and b) show bias,when you have NO WAY OF KNOWING what is and what is not correct.
Or does logic not apply to Unionists?
28

It's me!,

14/02/2008 08:17:28
I thought James VI of Scotland was crowned James I of Great Britain, not of England. Am I correct?
29

paul o,

Wodonga 14/02/2008 08:18:05
I don't recall the author but I do recall the comment that someone, supposed to be famous, was once recorded as saying: "People who don't study or understand history are bound to repeat it's mistakes."
I think WE COULD ALL do with a history refresher course. The mistakes of the past in all areas of politics, science and warfare seem to be comming back to haunt us.
Is this "the original sin of mankind?" To repeat forever the mistakes of our forebears.
30

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 14/02/2008 08:21:40
We may all feel good or otherwise about the history curriculum that gets put in place, but it won't make a blind bit of difference whether history is taught forwards or backwards if the kids aren't interested. (You can lead a horse to water...) I was one of those who dropped history at the first opportunity. My son's about to do the same. "How's learning about the past of any use?" we used to say. Now I think I know better, but I still have trouble making a convincing argument to my son.

Tom In Belmont at #7 points out that it may not be what is taught but how it is taught that will be more important. Get that part solved before worrying about what our kids should know. They'll learn what they want to , not necessarily what they're taught.


31

Nell,

The Preservation Hall 14/02/2008 08:33:38
The majority of school children will find history boring (not just children but adults too). Especially if its just quoting a load of dates and events. But like most things, if you make it more interesting!
For all its historical innaccuracies the film Braveheart captures people's interest.
Will this new focus on Scottish history also include the latest savage attack on Scotland by a horrible witch in the 1980's?
32

yockel,

14/02/2008 08:40:17
But will they have the bottle to teach about the white slavers that opperated around the coast and which didn't seem to get a mention when Tony Blair was appologising to all and sundry?
33

thinking,

Scotland 14/02/2008 08:41:19
He didn't mention Scotland's invasion of England.
He did mention that a Scottish King took the English throne, not the other way round.
He didn't mention that Scots fought on both sides of many of the battles.
History should be taught more - truthfully
34

malkster,

Scotland 14/02/2008 08:48:42
A good thread but remember history is the study of facts the interpretation of which is up to the individual.
35

Brentie,

Benoni 14/02/2008 09:04:23
History should be taught to prevent us all from
repeating the mistakes our ancestors made,by excluding
cetain parts we will never know what they did wrong
nor will we know what they did right and that should
include everything not just what we like but also that
we rather not talk about.
36

Boy Wonder,

14/02/2008 09:05:01
"THE wars fought between England and Scotland in the 13th and 14th centuries are vital to understanding the background to formation of the United Kingdom."

What utter tripe!

The battles to stay independepent from a larger, warlike neighbour such as England lasted longer than the 13th-14th century. Since the time of William the Conqueror, English kings attempted to control the Scots. Edward I came up with the artificial construct of "Lord Paramount" to hijack the country. Buy generally the wars of Independence were from around 1100 to 1707 ... since the majority of Scots didn't want the Union. And it had nothing to do with being "the background for GB" ... it was purely to remain free from English domination.

Read the Treaty of Arbroath Ms McLeod!!!
37

JimC,

Kilmarnock 14/02/2008 09:06:06
I am all for the truth about Scottish History, so let's dispel the myth about this "partnership union" The Darien Colonies were abandoned on 24th June 1699 due to illness and starvation. Spanish settlers attacked the colony, claiming the land as theirs, and English settlers nearby were instructed not to help. Survivors made their way to New York.

The scheme cost the lives of 2000 Scots and the company lost over £400,000, a sizeable proportion of the Scottish national wealth. Minutes state that proceedings on 10th January 1701 in the Scottish Parliament, resulted in three resolutions condemning English interference in the scheme.

38

scottish person,

paisley 14/02/2008 09:08:30
Never mind the 13th and 14th century. My 16 year old son came home from high school and told me that Maggie Thatcher was the best peacetime prime minister Britain ever had. This was history pre Alexi Salmonella, come on the SNP. AM stop posting.
39

morris,

edinburgh 14/02/2008 09:12:05
25

History is constantly being updated.
Even the previously believed arrival of people on these islands 500,000 years ago across what is now the North Sea ,is now seriously in doubt.Artifacts have been found here(Southern England) which date back to 700,000 years ago. We cannot say anything with any certainty,since it changes with each passing dig !

We almost certainly arrived earlier than previously accepted estimates and were already different tribes before setting foot here. Caledonia was not even included in Roman Britain.(Antonines Wall)and Hadrians Wall of course were the boundaries. In fact we are NOT even one island.

Two islands collided and the evidence is there along what became Hadrians Wall. Its a natural fortification line because the two plates collided there and created a natural barrier.

Since life first arrived here at least 700,000 years ago,we can only say one thing with certainty.Our history is unreliable and sketchy at best.We certainly do all genetically trace back to common ancestors as in maybe seven or a number of that order but to call us all Britons is very very collective,and we are definitely NOT anywhere near establishing that we are anything near to being related in any meaningful sense. Even those learned men who profess history are constantly having to eat their words.

When you say we are Britons its not much more accurate than saying we are Europeans. WE are crtainly NOT all the same tribe, and if you throw in later arrivals like the Celts, Anglo Saxons, Normans, Romans and Vikings ,I doubt if we can say anything in any certainty and it will not be challenged if not discredited soon.
40

Spicey,

Glasgow 14/02/2008 09:17:15
One of ma mates once asked me if the romans came before or after braveheart. I was just a tad embaressed for him t b honest.
41

camster,

East Kilbride 14/02/2008 09:18:00
I love history but was taught nothing at school except the Vikings and the Napoleonic wars. Last week a fellow work mate blamed the English for the actions of Hong Kong. I explained to him that Hong Kong was almost entirely run by Scots and he was amazed. I think it is time that the British empire is fully adressed by historians, the good and the bad.
42

Mcsnagpile,

14/02/2008 09:18:10
The Scottish were not oppressed or defeated by foreign powers. The correct term is ‘are’.
Think of Scottish Widows, Scottish Power, Trustee Savings Bank and multiply by a large figure.
There are many areas of England feel the same way, isolated and marginalised. From Aberdeen to London there are many companies who have to go overseas for permission to employ staff sending CV’s overseas not just for review but acceptance. No local budgets, Project Directors have to get permission from overseas to buy toilet rolls. Employee’s money used to finance large expenses and getting clearance from overseas for repayment.
Time to name and shame the Multi Nationals. This is history to be changed.

All areas should have their share of their own history taught in schools.
Who was King Loth anyway??

Something missing in Scottish history is the European element. How much closer our forefathers were to Europe than we are today; from Culloden to the Stone Age. The East of Scotland with Perth as its capital has been in contact and trading with Europe from long before pre-Roman times. A good example is the pre-Roman Gaelic trade routes along the West of Ireland Cornwall and Wales down the west of Europe by Britanny and Galicia to the Mediterranean. The Greeks were trading in tin in Cornwall for centuries before the Romans. The five hundred years of civilized Gallic/Roman culture in Briton. Our history books imply that the locals reverted back to the Stone Age?? Possibly just reverted to playing bagpipes, and eating porridge, waiting to be anglicised. Hello Mr Bead.

Scotland is full of pregnant history waiting to be revealed.

Without a past we have no future.
43

Ecce,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 09:25:07
It drives me daft that nearly every time Culloden is mentioned on film or television, it's presented as a Scotland versus England battle in which we "Scots" were defeated. It's high time Scots had some kind of perspective on the history of their own nation, although they do say that history is written by the victors, so we will have to try hard to achieve some kind of balance. Well worth doing, if only to ensure that Scots children know as much about our own past as they do about the Russian revolution.
44

camster,

east kilbride 14/02/2008 09:25:53
25 I dont know where you learnt your history. My family is Viking which is very common on the East coast of Scotland and England but not the west coast. I am probably much closer to Yorshiremen like my cousin than I am to someone in Lewis being tall and fair skinned with blue eyes. Does this make me any more or less Scottish?
45

popeye,

Daventry 14/02/2008 09:27:26
Why not teach Scottish history via the well researched books of Nigel Tranter.It's far more interesting than dried up text,and better than a Hollywood education i.e.Braveheart,where an American midget played the part of one of our heroes,William Wallace,reputedly a giant.
46

morris,

edinburgh 14/02/2008 09:28:14

46 Mcsnagpile




Without a past we have no future.

Wise words indeed.
I remember challenging my history teacher over the value of history.His reply was How are you going to know whats a step forward if you dont know what you have already done?YOu would repeat ,and defeat yourself.

That shut me up needless to say.Thats probably one of precious few things he ever told me that I did NOT FORGET.
47

camster,

east kilbride 14/02/2008 09:30:11
44, I am a great fan of regionalisation in England and breaking the idea that only London knows best. This will be good for Scotland and good for the UK. It will allow Scotland to talk directly to our neighbours such as the North East on issues such as the A1.
48

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 09:33:47
Perhaps some reading of the Web Site Realm of Scotland, would be a great place to start educating yourselves on the crimes of New Labour and particulary Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in collaboration with Dewar who was perhaps one of the biggest traitors Scotland has ever seen.

Scotland and Europe: Contribution by a senior diplomat who has been involved in the European integration movement for decades: I wrote a doctoral thesis on the subject (publication negotiations under way) and was personally friendly with movers and shakers like the late Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, whose Pan-European Union actually started the modern movement from 1926 onwards. The EU is only one of several European organizations, and in fact the like of the Council of Europe and the Conference on Security and cooperation in Europe have done a good deal more than the EU to advance the principles of an open society. The great majority of the EU members are not out for an open society or any other ideal, but are there simply because they are financial net recipients. That applies as much to Spain and Portugal as it does to all of the 10 recent new members. As we know, there was never any idealism behind the fisheries issue: the French and others wanted access to UK waters, and invented the common fisheries “policy” later as the pseudo-ethical window-dressing rather than admit the disaster they had caused. And when the Spaniards joined they jumped onto the fisheries gravy train, largely at Scotland’s expense. That is the reality of what is going on right through the EU. I have had the experience of sitting in at a meeting of agriculture and fisheries ministers, and have seen how they make decisions on matters that they cannot even understand, because nobody will admit that neither they nor the civil servants involved don’t have the slightest clue about what they are doing what they are doing. As for the far-sighted, purposeful elite, there are no visionaries or idealists left. Very recentl
49

C U Jimmy,

Ayrshire 14/02/2008 09:34:15
When I was at school 50 years ago we were taught about the battle of Trafalgar Etc., but were never taught any Scottish history. I wonder why.
50

morris,

edinburgh 14/02/2008 09:36:27
48 camster,east kilbride

Of course you are no less Scottish.The only thing that that Rules proves is that he knows as much about Scottish history as I do,and thats NOT SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF.

As I said earlier even the Proffessors are constantly being proved wrong,so what chance have we got ?
You probably know as much about your ancestry as anybody does.Certainly more than I do!

Was that you who threw a spear intae ma dartboard by any chance?
51

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 09:36:57
Very recently, at the Swedish embassy, I was talking to a former Austrian cabinet minister who now has a senior post in Brussels, and he was of the opinion (shared, I believe, elsewhere in Brussels) that there was nothing wrong with the EU that could not be cured by converting it into a normal international organization on an intergovernmental basis like NATO and all the others, i.e. without its present supranational powers. We have to be very wary indeed about committing Scotland to the present and intended level of integration represented by the EU, which is not run by an open society, but by a relative handful of political activists whose motives are more suspect because distance renders them remote from the ordinary citizens. It is the euro fanatics who get themselves appointed and elected to Brussels. After several decades of close acquaintance with the real European political scene from the vantage point of a Foreign Ministry I have seen all the pitfalls that face Scotland if we fall for an outdate European policy. What increased influence would a 5-million state have within a Union of 500 millions! If the democratic deficit is to be reduced, and justice and good governance guaranteed, it means that all government has to be carried on at the most “local” level at which it can be administered with reasonable efficiency. And we don’t need the EU for that purpose-the United Nations has long since laid down the requisite standards and oversees adherence to them. All this would be know if Scotland had not been cut off from the world for so long, and we need to increase consciousness of these facts. Comment on the government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland Report (GERS) In a letter to the Herald, the leader of the SNP made extensive comments on the GERS report. Among other things he pointed out that: Gers was conceived as a political, not as a statistical, exercise. We know this because the original correspondence from the then Secretary of state, Ian Lang, wa
52

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 09:39:01
Ian Lang, was leaked some years ago-he wanted it to “undermine the other parties”, saying “this initiative could score against all of them”. The civil servants involved have several times tried to pull it back from its more blatant political exploitation by Tory and Labour politicians. The economist in charge, Dr Andrew Goudie, has noted that “Gers tells us nothing about the situation under independence”. The problems with Gers are twofold and obvious. It publishes a non-oil headline figure and takes no account of UK borrowing. Thus, it is used by the Tories to talk of subsidies or labour of black holes. The first is as ludicrous as taking the financial sector out of London finances while the second places the debate in an artificial context. The UK has a budget deficit this year of £34bn, a non-oil deficit of £45bn, and accumulated debt of £500bn. Gers is also two years out of date, and merely by adjusting for this year’s oil revenues, which have doubled to more than £10bn, and allowing for the UK deficit, the “subsidy” flows in 2007 from north to south. That is before making any other corrections-for example, the clear counting of English-only departmental expenditure as part of the Scotland total. The pre-budget report shows them rising from just more than £10bn to almost £12bn over the next five years. Nor should she pretend that it is running out-Labour’s internal policy documents suggest more than 30 years of supply. Of cause, there is nothing new about the Labour Party systematically and cynically under-estimating Scotland’s oil wealth. The secret papers, recently published from the 1970s, show that this is a long-established Labour tradition. In these papers was the private economic advice that an independent Scotland would be richer than Switzerland. In public, Labour politicians were comparing our economic prospects to these of Bangladesh. Norway, Ireland and Iceland: All three have lessons to teach us if we are open-minded enough to learn. One of these l
53

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 09:40:19
In public, Labour politicians were comparing our economic prospects to these of Bangladesh. Norway, Ireland and Iceland: All three have lessons to teach us if we are open-minded enough to learn. One of these lessons is to use the strength of Scotland’s current budget position to improve our competitive advantage and generate growth and revenue for the long term. They pursue three very different social and taxation models but all three are among the top six economies in the world in terms of wealth per head. They also happen to be three of a handful of western countries running and absolute budget surplus. That has happened because they are economically successful.
Posted By: Dr. James Wilkie Posted Date: 02/26/2007
54

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 09:41:52
Thats a huge lot of stuff that he wants to be covered. I've been doing medieval re-enacting for 6 years, and there is still plenty I do not know about how Scotland was in the medieval period. (It would help if the archaeologists had found more stuff, but cloth and other material goods do not survive well)
But certainly people need to know of Scotlands connections to the wider world- a lot of the buildings that have survived show a conscious desire to mimic and learn from our continental cousins/ friends/ allies.

55

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 09:45:51
Rules #25- which particular definition of history are you using? The pre roman period in which the tribes and local groupings which the Romans met were established over centuries. It is I think possible to argue that Scottish history effectively started with the Bronze age.

Also, the Britons were one tribe, not everyone in Scotland.
56

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 09:47:24
Some of the very interesting facts that can be found at this site are that Tridents Costs are allocated to Scotland in their attempt to show Scotland as Financially a basket case, when in fact Scotland provides a surplus of over 10 billion quid.

Yes AM2 the Irish reject will attempt to discredit these facts which are based on recent up to date Treasury Figures. There is much more information on this site, but the jewel in the crown is the article on why Westminster was forced to establish the Scottish Parliament or face expulsion from the European Council.
57

Fabius Maximus,

14/02/2008 09:53:37
All the way through primary school we had Scottish History, and it was sequential. I remember sitting in class listening to radio dramatisations of bits of it. It wasn't til secondary school that we moved on to stuff about English history, then to the American War of Independence, the French and Russian Revolutions, the Industrial Revolution, etc. And I'm very glad it was done that way - I felt rooted in the history of my own land, with a knowlege of some broader history seen in that perspective.

Alarming, though that some schools don't teach history at all - but for Scots history, I really think it has to begin in the Primary, and I'm not sure Tom Devine is the right expert to advise on that, since he's a historian and academic, rather than a teacher with an interest in history.............
58

bumpkin,

outer space 14/02/2008 09:56:17
Qestions that need aired and answered, for instance;
Who stole all the common land in scotland?
How did the lairds end up with all the land freehold when they didnt pay for it and the people had held it by right?
Why were the edinburgh lawyers allowed to carry out this theft in collusion with the lairds?
Why has the blame for the famine of 1695/6 never been laid at the landlords door, whose punitive short leases led directly to the hunger?
59

Douglas Eckhart,

Eckhart 14/02/2008 10:08:34
52: Scotland is of very recent and provisional provenance and has never been a nation in any modern sense.
------------

What codswallop! In fact Scotland has all the trappings of an independent nation apart from the small fact of political sovereignty. Scotland was a completely standard modern state by 1707 and had developed along the same lines as everyone else.

Way before this, the Declaration of Arbroath was written, and is a remarkable document; one of the earliest expressions of national identity in world history.
Of course the 'national franchise' was only limited to the nobles and wealthy merchant class, as top down democracy had not yet evolved, but certainly those uper echelons within the 'national franchise' expressed a defined sense of nationhood that we would understand today. Go and read it again. No doubt you will talk of motives, but this is irrelevant; it is the idea expressed that is important.

Concerning the Romans: Being a Roman re-enactor myself, I am in a position to tell you about Roman involvement in Scotland. It is more extensive than people think.. I hear people saying the Romans never went beyond Hadrian's Wall - my erse!

The first campaign by Agricola (or perhaps started by the previous governor, reached as far as Aberdeenshire and a huge battle was fought at an unknown site called Mons Graupius (this may be Ben Achie). A line of forts and a road system was established that extended up the Gask Ridge to a final fort at Bertha (what is now Perth). This occupation only lasted around 15 years and then the Romans retreated to the Stanegate (Hadrian's wall line).

However in 138AD the Romans decomissioned Hadrian's Wall and pushed north again and established a massive earth and timber/ditch wall linking the clyde to the forth, known as the antonine wall. Go to Roughcastle fort next to the Falkirk wheel to get a good idea of the scale. The Antonine Wall runs between what is now Glasgow and Edinburgh. Go to bearsden to see the re
60

John S,

14/02/2008 10:10:16
#54 etc A Better Way - thanks for your interesting posts.
61

camster,

east kilbride 14/02/2008 10:12:04
Reading this blog confirms my belief that the EC may not be the great white hope for Scotland that some people believe. Eire caught the moment but those days are gone. It is now facing real economic problems and is struggling to find a new vision. Scotland needs a strong UK for its economic development as well as a strong positive identity.
62

morris,

edinburgh 14/02/2008 10:17:44
52

Scotland or in its earlier form Alba was formed around the time of Kenneth McCalpin who is considered to be Scotland first king,(Kenneth 1st)
although the boundaries are of course those of the previous kingdoms of the Picts and the Scotti of Dal Riata. Some parts to the east were acquired later,but this is acknowldeged/accepted as SCOTLAND by most historians, although I do know that some dispute that Kenneth the 1st was in fact King of both and it may in fact have been Kenneth III quite a few years later.Whichever it is,it means that Scotland is ONE OF THE OLDEST IDENTIFIABLE NATIONS in existence and there are few older.There are no nations which have never had boundary changes, other changes or been involved in skirmishes/wars etc so Scotland is as acceptable as any nation can be.


Denmark and Luxembourg certainly are older than Scotland,but England is not.The nation of the Picts was never captured and the Romans withdrew as you say.Some say they did not want it that much in fact !They did have committments in their huge empire ,but the Kingdom of the Picts was never part of it.Far from the Romans making much impression upon the Picts it was the other way round and the Romans decided to abandon Antonies Wall which marked their first attempt at ruling southern Scotland but had to withdraw to Hadrians wall.The reasons for withdrawal are academic.

The point is that the Picts were never comquered by anybody, (although the Vikings certainly left their mark much later) but they were replaced culturally by the Gaelic speaking Scotti, who were numerically quite small and primarily traders with the other half of their original Kingdom of Dal Riata which was in Northern Ireland and Argyll.
The capital was Dumbarton I think.
They no doubt married here and had children also ,but the language and culture were the significant influence on the Picts,not genetically so much.

Where did you study Scottish history anyway ?I presume it was in Scotland .IT does n
63

Douglas Eckhart,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 10:19:30
oops i was cut off!

Anyway, following on from my post no.68, the Antonine Wall, between modern Glasgow and Edinburgh and with a line of forts stretching up to Bertha (modern Perth), was occupied for 25 years, before the Romans moved back to Hadrians wall again.

Both walls should not be seen as for 'keeping barbarians out'. This view is now out of date. If so, why have gateways every roman mile along it?

Both walls are better understood as checkpoints, for controlling movement in and out of the frontier zone.
military, merchants and other civilians would have passed through it both ways, and would have been taxed.
The romans could also keep an eye on movements and restrict travel if required.
Only as a last resort was the wall used as any kind of defence. It was more about tax and as an expression of imperial power.
64

Phil C,

14/02/2008 10:23:42
While history is important, the future is more important. We should not waste time overdoing the teaching bit, but concentrate on giving kids the tools to thrive in an independent Scotland. The main fact we need to know from our history is that we are a people without the most basic right, that of being able to live in your own country, making all your own decisions. We should not be sending clowns to a different land to oversee us! How so many of my fellow Scots can live with that is beyond me!

We're a people with a rich history of invention and discovery. We have the natural and human resources to power a strong economy! We don't need Trident etc or wars in Iraq to be foisted on us. If you don't feel 'Scottish' you won't care and will be happy to be Westminster's golden poodle and in turn sit on George Bush's lap as the poodle's backside!
65

Douglas Eckhart,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 10:24:57
Morris:

I studied Ancient history at Edinburgh, and some of this included 'Roman Scotland', but as for wider Scottish history, this was self taught thanks to the dire state of Scottish history in schools of my day in the late 80s early 90s. I don't think its changed that much.
66

camster,

east kilbride 14/02/2008 10:25:13
68, You may be intersted to know that the battle of Mons Graupius was where the phrase "Britons, never, never, never will be slaves" was attributed to Calgacus. The Scots should be proud that their ancestors stood up and took on the Romans in a fighting draw. A thousand years later the same people stood and fought against the French Norman invaders leading to Braveheart. It was only when some of the Scots mistakenly took the side of the Pope against a homegrown religion that things went wrong.
67

Clive Hamblin,

Hove, Sussex. 14/02/2008 10:27:59
#32 - Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it; George Santayana.

When Scotland sorts out its teaching of history, could it turn its attention to helping the English do the same?
68

morris,

edinburgh 14/02/2008 10:32:29
76 Clive Hamblin,Hove, Sussex.

Again Wise words .

We really are in need of going back to school and I include myself at the front of the pecking order.At least I am aware of my ignorance.Thats a start.

Now for the hard bit!
69

wayne bijlyeerheid,

14/02/2008 10:43:12
#27 John S >Here am I thinking that the Battle of Culloden and the events which followed paved the way to a peaceful Union.<
Culloden occurred 40 years AFTER the Union.

#31 its me >thought James VI of Scotland was crowned James I of Great Britain, not of England.Am I correct?<
No, you're not correct, he was King of Scotland and King of England.
Both the Scots and the English were hostile to a single crown of Gt. Britain.
If only they'd kept it up.
70

morris,

edinburgh 14/02/2008 10:48:53
78

Gaelic was introduced by the Scotti and was (and still is )the language of the Celts of Central Europe in its least diluted form, or at least this is the most recent theory I have heard.
All other Celtic languages have evolved but Scotti Gaelic is considered to be closest to that language which existed in Central Europes Celtic tribes.Its foreign to these shores ie(but then what isn't you could ask)

IT is not the native language nor culture of the Picts which no longer exists as far as I am aware,(apart from blue faces at Scotland matches maybe).
However recent studies have suggested that the Celts may in fact not originate in Central Europe as has been accepted without question for many years now,and can possibly be traced further back in history to Portugal and Catalonia.They were certainly coastal dwellers if this is correct.Is it correct? No idea.

History is as much opinion as it is factual,and the further back we go,the more this becomes true for obvious reasons.
71

wayne bijlyeerheid,

14/02/2008 10:56:18
#78
>Scotland has never been a nation as now defined<
How is a nation now defined then?
>From JOG to LE we all spoke the same languageThe Scots spoke Gaelic, the Northern Caledonians (Picts) language unknown, the Norse of the Islands spoke Norse, the English of the Lothians spoke English and the Britons of Strathclyde spoke Welsh.
72

walter,

14/02/2008 11:00:26
History cannot be taught, It does not matter what happened in the past people will have their own views on it.
Some people believe Thatcher dragged this country down into the gutter and others believe she pulled it up out of the gutter, Which group of people are correct.
As far as they are concerned both are so who is going to teach this period in history and are the people being taught it going to believe one persons views over another's.
People will have their own perception on the events of the past and they will not concur.
73

Nellie,

Liverpool 14/02/2008 11:02:06
#21 Too right about the dumbing down of history in Primary Schools. The curriculum for WW2 in our Primary didn't even mention what caused it! You'd have thought THAT at least would have been taught, more than what were the types of air raid shelters the Brits... or there was a shortage of chocolate!

And then, the Russians didn't even get one mention, either!!!

Like, ummm ... what about Poland?

Errrr... who was it that invaded Poland with Germany?

Ummmm who lost most soldiers in the war and took away the greatest majority of the German army so the Western Allies could invade by the backdoor of France?
74

camster,

east kilbride 14/02/2008 11:06:13
In Ireland, Goidelic - or Q-Celtic, thanks to its characteristic kw sound - became the dominant language and gave rise to Irish, Scots Gaelic and Manx. Most historians date the arrival of the Celtic language in Britain to around 600BC. This version of Celtic was to evolve into Brittonic (or Brythonic), which in turn gave rise to Welsh, Cornish and Breton.

As the kw sound of Goidelic appears as a p in Brittonic, it is also known as P-Celtic, and traces of the relation between the two languages still survive: for instance, the Irish word for head is 'eann' (pronounced cen), where as in Welsh it is 'pen'.

It appears that Brittonic was spoken by the majority of people in present-day Wales, England and southern Scotland. There is also evidence that it was understood by the Gaulish speakers of France; the Gauls and the Britons had a fair amount of contact.

Indeed, historians believe that the druids of Gaul may have trained in Anglesey, and it was because of British support for the Gaulish tribes during the Roman wars that Julius Caesar launched two punitive raids on South East England in 55 and 54 BC
75

camster,

east kilbride 14/02/2008 11:12:42
My mothers family are Cornish some of them who still speak the language. Yet whilst I was young some stupid Scots dismissed them as English. This is one reason I spent so much time researching my ancestory.


76

voltaire's janny,

14/02/2008 11:46:10
The professor's comments as well as his choice of the key elements of Scottish history are to be welcomed.

I dropped history at 14 to take geography - one of those arbitrary choices one makes at school. However I have read my way through all kinds of stuff since including most of the prof's topics.

People need to learn about the events for sure, but why do so many bloggers here then put a ridiculous spin on selected historical episodes simply to reinforce their modern day prejudices?

Poster #2 implies the Jacobite rebellions were a Scots v English interaction. What tosh. How do I know? Because I have read around the subject.

And that is the key - unless schoolkids are encouraged above all to r-e-a-d they will never get past pop-up-book versions of history that perforce have to cast villains and heroes. Thir history does not have to come in a packaged module in class.

Read the shortbread tin, the Beano and poetry; tat tea-towels and Scots history plastered around our "interpretive" tourist sites. Be curious and don't take one point of view as the only one.

Burns' parcel o' rogues were the Scots in power, not their English bribers. Just because Burns lamented the dodgy manner in which the Union came to be does not mean he would deny the Union's spectacular success in hindsight no more than he would use that as a reason to keep it today.

When you know a bit of history you can, like me, be an ardent Nationalist, proud of the Union's achievements, an atheist who recognises the heretofore political benefit of an established church in England, and a green in favour of nuclear power and windmill-skeptic.

How rare to find myself in partial agreement with AM2

However I'll be an SNP voter until they deliver, because Labour in Scotland have governed ineptly and corruptly on someone else's agenda for years.



77

wayne bijlyeerheid,

14/02/2008 11:47:42
#83 Nellie
The invasion of Czeckoslovakia seems to have gone missing from history altogether.
And who was it that invaded Czeckoslovakia as a nazi ally?
ask the Poles.
The Soviets may have the highest casualty lists but, if they had stood against fascism, instead of uniting with it and taken part in partitioning Poland, they wouldn't have set themselves up.
Karma, it never stops.
78

Upbeat,

14/02/2008 11:48:18
All down this thread we can view the clear consequences of the failure by successive generations of teachers in Scotland to provide a proper timescale and background on which facts about Scottish history can be assembled.

Many people today have such a limited understanding of the sequence of events in History that the conclusions they reach for themselves are quite mistaken.

Politicians can (and frequently do) use this lack of proper information to sway the masses. This is called revisionism. ( If you tell people often enough any contrived " truth" they will tend to believe it . )

Thank goodness the debate on the future of History teaching in Scotland is happening now. Provided the new curriculum goals and teaching ideals are delivered by those who have no political axe to grind , well and good.

But to take some of the posts above at face value, I see little chance of an even handed appreciation of Scottish history, in proper context, ever being tolerated by those with other agendas or of it being permitted adequate time in Scottish schools.
79

westview,

In the present. 14/02/2008 11:53:03
Yes , a well chosen list of our history. the core of the discussion must be that we learn our history or it is lost. An exsample of cultural imperialism which we here suffer from is the story of the Tolpudle Martyrs, which is used time and again as a tale of the workers being punished for fighting for their rights. You hardly ever hear of the Scots martyrs who were executed for this and not just sent to Australia like the English workers. The Paisley weavers marches are also faded into the background of British history. Most importantly what is happening right now is distorted or under reported because we in Scotland do not have control of our own broadcasting news media. It should be a Scots 24 not just a Scotish 6 that reports what is afterall history as it happens.
80

Thistledhu,

Fife 14/02/2008 11:53:05
History should be taught it is a importan foundation for any country.

But we do have to avoid any partizan /politcal influence on its content look at the republic of Irelands teaching of history everthing is blamed on English/ british interferance glossing over such things as the civil war where they killed each other in numbers that would shock the most hardned Black n tan
81

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 14/02/2008 12:00:28
80
morris,
edinburgh 14/02/2008 10:48:53

What we know as the picts, spoke and earlier from of Brythonic
82

Steve Evans,

Malta 14/02/2008 12:01:09
No mention of the 1698 Darien Expedition led by William Paterson?
83

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 14/02/2008 12:07:33
84
camster
Indeed, historians believe that the druids of Gaul may have trained in Anglesey

Careful with Anglo-myth making, Anglesey is really called Ynys Mon.
There were five high seats of learning or Druidic councils in The British Isles Ynys Mon being one.
84

WKKB,

14/02/2008 12:19:59
#2 you say "Mary, Queen of Scots(Why not just Queen Mary?)" Could it possibly be because there was another Queen Mary, also known as Bloody Mary.
85

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 14/02/2008 12:24:33
In this superb site (http://www.ucc.ie/celt/publishd.html), by scholars, many who speak their lingua materna (mother toungue) is a great deal of race and culture connection to here.
We need an accurate resource on the ancient time line of what is now known as Scotland, which is far older than a mere administrative title for a grouping of peoples that culturally go back 11,500 years not 1200.
86

kimba,

14/02/2008 12:24:40
Would this be to cause conflict between England and Scotland,and so enhance salmonds call for Independence!
87

Logie Almond,

14/02/2008 12:30:00
#93 "the Picts had developed an effective means of gorrilla warfare."

Stop monkeying around with history.
88

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 14/02/2008 12:36:12
The Romans, so scared of the authority of The Druid - ultimately as it is defined by the movement of the sun the moon and the earth and the observation of nature and the defining of culture from these stantions- nearly broke the considerable roman imperial bank trying to break this knowledge (in the from of repeated warring occupations over a 305 year period) and sell it back to us in a third rate from, bolstering their beloved Roman Ideologies and the pseudo superiority of their war machine.

Another syncratic empire sooks for the cream and gets the scum.
89

Resolutions,

14/02/2008 12:45:44
#96 Mary Queen of Scots is the correct title in Scotland as Jamie VI King of Scots. They should not be addressed as majesty in Scotland either, but 'Your Grace'
I am still cogitating on the article which I read in the paper, not on-line, but heartened to see the debate about it, but very dismayed at the extent of ignorance displayed by so many.
Every country has a history - some good, some shameful, some questionable, but that does not exclude knowing about it and facing up to certain, maybe unpalatable facts. Nor does it mean that the past has to be interpreted in todays manner. Our predecessors reacted and behaved according to the situation they found themselves in and not the way we expect them to in the 21st Century.
That is all the more reason for looking closely at how our history has been portrayed to us over the years and questioning WHY today.
90

Douglas Eckhart,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 12:46:19
95: Rules-

Your definition of 'nation' is not my definiiton so i can't agree with you in the slightest. Also regarding the Declaration of Arbroath, where these people originates in unimportant - the point is, the wording clearly expresses an identity of 'scots' and 'scottish'.
As for your other 'evidence', these points apply to all nations.. borders shift. But they are still nations, regardless of whether they have a defined modern state or not.

Regarding Caledonia, it definately had a different character from the rest of 'Britannia' and this was recognised by the romans, but the northern tribes were not unified - they were a patchwork of tribes - as were those in 'Britannia' There was no single 'british nation'.

btw also, the picts are now regarded as celtic ('celtic' being an umbrella term for a range of shared charactersitics'). The old notion that the picts were somehow 'pre-celtic' is no longer accepted. however their celtic culture appears to be unique from others in southern Britain and Europe, as evidenced by their amazing carvings - quite unlike anything else, although variations of the 'knot pattern' can be seen.
It appears that Scottish Gaelic culture was adopted by the picts and over hundred years or so, the old pictish culture was forgotten as 'Scottish' became the fashionable thing. The Scots did not wipe out te picts. The numbers of scots was actually small. What happened is that the vast majority of Picts *became* scots.

This also happened with the anglo-saxons in the south, many were actually romano-british, but they adopted anglo-saxon culture. It was a cultural takeover rather than a military one
91

Number 6,

Germany 14/02/2008 12:49:53
Will the unionists please stop your bleating.It's BECAUSE history has been so politicised in the past , that our people are so ignorant of their own history.
We now have the oppertunity to produce a well researched, non-politicised history sylabus that concentrates on all aspects of SCOTTISH history , good and bad. That means not only the enlightnment but also
the persecution of the Scottish coventors. British history is just that, we should first educate our children in pre-union Scottish history, and then later
in their education they can learn of our role in British history.

Your fear of more people identifying with their Scottishness is palpable and frankly shames you.
Your "We are not able", "Can't do " attitude,
present every time a "Scottish" initiative is announced
has become a mind-numbingly boring mantra. Please take it elsewhere.
92

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 14/02/2008 12:55:17
40 Boy Wonder

REALLY enjoyed your comments. Had me all OVER the net looking up things that you mentioned. You truly are "wonderous" and put many of the other posters to shame - myself not excluded.

And who is this joker "," who is consistently removed from these forums ALL THE TIME!

Hasn't he or she got the message that he or she is BANNED and don't waste your effort trying to post your stupid drivel.

THus endeth the lecturette. :)
93

Grant,

Scotland 14/02/2008 13:09:51
I think this is a good idea. I just hope that the teaching is done not to benefit any one political viewpoint in Scotland, especially with the increasing schism with respect to the Constitution. For example in teaching the History of the Act of Union I'd prefer to see a little less Unionist sanitised propaganda ("the Scots were in favour of the Union") with the widely documented perspective that "the Scots, at the time, were not in favour on the Union", by a large degree.
94

Disputer,

14/02/2008 13:28:32
110

Agreed up until your last sentence.
95

Dylan fan,

Planet earth 14/02/2008 13:31:16

I find it all very exciting. A chance to get it right? Yes! History is always written by the winner! It seems to me in what little Scottish History I have stumbled through, even when Scotland had the most Power, it was taken back by England through trickery. How can we think a Common Union exists if folks aren't allowed to speak in their own language and wear what they want ..when even speaking with an accent revealing their history is looken down upon.
Surely this is not Common Union. Come on.
96

Dylan fan,

Planet earth 14/02/2008 13:35:52
Make that "looked" down upon...
My granddaughter has become a history major and is now in Graduate School. She was inspired by a history teacher in high school. I hope the children in Scotland become inspired through this new interest in teaching the History of Scotland within the land itself. It is a breath of fresh air any way you look at it.
97

JABB,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 13:39:07
*Please enter your comment*

At least Scottish history is being taught now. when I was at school it was all about the English with Scotland as a footnote! What I know about Scottish history is all self taught.
98

Upbeat,

14/02/2008 13:40:28
Still it goes on and on. people writing potted histories based on their own understanding of events.

History is about facts. The conclusions that some people attempt to construct sometimes far too loosely based on some incomplete facts are not history. These ideas remain the work of people with individual set agendas.

If the revised teaching of history in Scotland enables more people to understand the sequence of events better this will be a great thing. But modern histiory teaching must never be about attributing value judgements. This notion of history is flawed by its very incompleteness.

If the attempt is sidelined into any dogmatic and set in stone assessment of the motivations , plots and historical intrigue that occurred in Scotland and everywhere else, in response to the social standards of a different age, then it will have failed.
99

,

14/02/2008 13:44:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
100

kimba,

14/02/2008 13:46:28
..........And maybe Salmond will join him in time.
101

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 14/02/2008 13:52:00
102
Douglas Eckhart,
Edinburgh 14/02/2008 12:46:19

"The old notion that the picts were somehow 'pre-celtic' is no longer accepted."

Yes, I understanding that the term "insular Celts" suffices generically.


--------------

"This also happened with the anglo-saxons in the south, many were actually romano-british, but they adopted anglo-saxon culture"

No, The Anglo-Saxons assimilated into the Roman administrative leftovers, and having "played the opposite(culturally speaking)" for so long, created a cultural vacuum as reneging mercenaries to the Southern British King Vortigen, they were uninvited and banished, this being the reason they desperately tried to fit in and assimilate.

The Romano-British had the propensity to revert to their original culture of the island.
The Romano-Anglo-Saxon-Jutes with their cultural vacuum, still thirsty for colonising and control is still in evidence today via their non-culture and desperation to fit in.
102

Number 6,

Germany 14/02/2008 13:57:32
Kimba why would teaching Scottish history cause conflict with England ?. Why can you people not accept that Scottish children should be taught Scottish history?. As a native of englandshire,all traces of national identity for you were wiped out long ago on the tidal wave of Political Correctness. We have not suffered that problem, it has been lack of access that has kept Scot's ignorant of their own history.

As for your bizarre question "Would scots want to know their history"?, why on god's earth would they not.Every country's history is tainted with sadness and shame, your own being a classic example. Now it may be accepted practice to ignore your own history in Englandshire, but not in Scotland. Not anymore.
103

Resolutions,

14/02/2008 14:07:40
"Prof Devine, of Edinburgh University, warned that three Scottish schools have already stopped teaching history completely"

For goodness sake, I missed this on several readings before it sank in!

What a disgraceful situation.The poor youngsters. How can they have a balanced education for life?

Can these schools be named please PLEASE?
104

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 14/02/2008 14:08:00
110
Rulesbutnotrulers,
Federation, not separation

"The Celts are irrelevant until historians agree who or what they actually were."

Its english historians that cannot agree on their lack of knowledge and propaganda.

We have that knowledge party to the fact it is our culture and there is a context from which to view, this can only be done fully if you have Cymraeg or Gaelic, if you approach from an english language and therefore an english perspective you will never be in a position to fully understand. However it is even deeper than this. A great deal is known about the Picts and The Irish (which make the Scots) its more that oral traditions are/were the method that ancient understandings are made.
105

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinbugh 14/02/2008 14:12:02
Judging by some of the more moronic posts on here today I can well understand how we ended up in this union even after fighting for hundreds of years to stay Independent.

1. There was no referendum. Nobody asked the population for their view.

2. It was decided by a majority vote in the Scottish Parliament by the various factions and alliances within that Parliament.

3.Some of these factions owed debts and land in England and were beholding to the Crown of England.

3. Many of these votes followed a party whip and many were bought for with cash and titles.

4.The entire process was a sham trying to pass itself of as democratic.

5.Scotland joined its parliament with Westminster on the back of corruption, avarice,deceit and exclusion of the majority.

Yet Devine would water all of this down by just saying the Union was formed by a democratic vote within Parliament and not a military invasion.
The fact that AM2 sings his praises speaks volumes on its own.
Today we have the same mentality trying to keep us in the union.

No referendum, election rigging, funding squeeze, massive media propaganda and Devolution.
106

kimba,

14/02/2008 14:17:46
119. For your information our children are taught English history and have been for many years,we seem to have more to be proud of than most!
107

kimba,

14/02/2008 14:19:46
120. sensible school,why depress your students!
108

Roy Forrester,

Bloomsburg USA 14/02/2008 14:21:45
The problem with history is that it is wholly subjective. e.g. I read history in Scotland and my wife read the subject in England. When we compare notes, one wonders if we are talking about the same events. It is a question of perspective of the historian.
On this note I see that some of the readers still believe that Culloden was a conflict between the Scots and the English whereas it was one of the last conflicts between the Jacobites and the Hanoverians. There were as many Scots on the Hanoverian side as were on the Jacobite side. An important point glossed over by many historians.
Another point is that Social history is frequently glossed over, usually due to a lack of specific knowledge by the historian or more often it is considered too dull to teach, but it is an essential part of the fabric of the present day Scots.
109

monkey man,

14/02/2008 14:24:35
Unless Scottish history is taught as part of British history it is irrelevant.
110

Disputer,

14/02/2008 14:27:55
116 & 117 kimba

...and so yet again we descend into the wonderful world of kimba. A world where trolling the same statement to the nth degree is seen as somehow amusing. It wasn't funny or clever the first time. It's just childish.
111

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 14/02/2008 14:28:34
116 kimba

Oh, really GROW UP! History is historical FACT and cannot be sissified for the likes of you.

William Wallace did come to a gruesome end but that is HISTORY, whether you approve or not.

And the students today for the most part are used to watching such violence on televion, on the computers, and on the streets so they would not be SHOCKED AND OUTRAGED.

They should be taught the FACTS and FACTS ONLY no matter how distasteful.

Obviously you are not a student of history - I am.

112

Disputer,

14/02/2008 14:33:01
124 kimba making it up again

No you're quite wrong again. British history is taught in English schools..as is the history of the constituent parts of the UK. Check your facts before posting.
113

kimba,

14/02/2008 14:34:44
129. You are also in Canada,so please have the decency to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS,as this pertains to the UK and her people.
114

Nellie,

Liverpool 14/02/2008 14:37:06
#87 True enough about the Czechs but it was the invasion of Poland that caused Britain to declare war on Germany, not of anywhere else, because it was with Poland that Britain had a mutual defence pact. This reason for the war (from a British perspective) is missing from the Primary school curriculum.

So too is the the fact that Russia invaded at the same time so we were effectively at war with them, too. It was only when German invaded Russia, and they switched sides, that Russia was "welcomed" as an Allie.

But what is missing from most films (outside of the Russian Federation, at least) is that without Russian participation, the Western Allies couldn't have invaded occupied territories in France, liberated Belgium, Holland, etc. Our forces would have been crushed it they tried but for the fact that MOST of the German army was tied up losing against a tenacious Red Army. What was it, something 14 Panzer groups in the Eastern Front compared with 2 (or was it 4?) on the Western Front? The full might of the German army was capable of rushing the Allied invasion but, instead, the were slowly but surely retreating to the weight of the Red Army.

Also missing from the history lesson was that the war ended with Poland (and a whole lot more besides) STILL in occupation by a hostile force. As you know, not the German's this time but by the Red Army. One vicious dictatorship substituted for another, and for what? For the bankruptcy of the British economy, leaving the door wide open for US economic expansion and on to its economic dominance of the World AND of the seas that were once under the heel of Britain.

So, who " won" the war? Most surely not us! And when the results are tallied, I'm not sure the Russians did, either. But the US did very nicely from it, thank you very much.
115

Nellie,

Liverpool 14/02/2008 14:39:13
# 131 Sometimes it takes an outsider's unsullued view to help us see the wood from the trees ...
116

kimba,

14/02/2008 14:39:36
130. SORRY, as a teaching assistant I can assure you that ENGLISH HISTORT is taught in primary schools in England.
117

Disputer,

14/02/2008 14:42:13
131
kimba,
14/02/2008 14:34:44
129. "You are also in Canada,so please have the decency to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS,as this pertains to the UK and her people."

In which case, this doesn't pertain to you either so shut it. Got it? Right.

The articles are from commenting from wherever you are. You of course are posting from Pluto.
118

Disputer,

14/02/2008 14:45:33
134

Oh PRIMARY schools! Most of the article above (had you read it) refers to the Secondary curriculum. In primary schools the main idea is to get the kids interested.

ps...my niece's primary school in Kent teaches History from from all parts of the UK.
119

Disputer,

14/02/2008 14:46:34
..you are also not a teaching assistant. How can we believe someone who posts fictitious addresses for her "lawyer"?
120

Lock,

14/02/2008 14:47:12
#115 & #129,

History is not about facts. That is what makes it such a wonderful subject.

Name me a 'fact' about history and I'm sure I or someone else will be able to interpret it in a different way than you. And if you suggest naming dates and years is history then you have completely missed the point.
121

kimba,

14/02/2008 14:47:18
135.LOL,YOU ARE TRULY A MORON, as a citizen, of GB I HAVE EVERY RIGHT,so go and spout your bile else where!
122

kimba,

14/02/2008 14:49:33
137. dear god,do you think for one minute I would tell you vindictive lot the real address of my solicitor,not a chance in h-ll!
123

kimba,

14/02/2008 14:53:56
136.Good for your niece,we however feel kids NEED to learn ENGLISH history first, oh,in our secondary schools we learn AMERICAN history but not Scottish,wonder why that is,must have nothing to teach us!!!!!!!!!!!!
124

Disputer,

14/02/2008 14:57:17
141

Wrong again toots. I've just checked the English National Curriculum. You really do make it all up don't you?
125

kimba,

14/02/2008 15:00:59
142. GOOD FOR YOU,but think you will find church of England schools do things slightly differant!
126

kimba,

14/02/2008 15:04:19
142. you are grasping at straws,but there again we in England have the beating of you scots,so please DO NOT AWAKEN THE SLEEPING GIANT, you will not like the outcome!
127

Disputer,

14/02/2008 15:04:59
Kimba

Here's a quote from the National Curriculum (history) to stop you making a bigger fool of yourself.

"The different histories and changing relationships through time of the peoples of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales."

I think you should make an official complaint to your local education department. If this is not being offered, they're in deep trouble.
128

Disputer,

14/02/2008 15:06:13
143
kimba,
14/02/2008 15:00:59
142. "GOOD FOR YOU,but think you will find church of England schools do things slightly differant!"


Yes they do. They've got a different way of teaching spelling & grammar for one.
129

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 14/02/2008 15:06:43
128
Disputer

LOL


It was Albert Einstein who said:

" Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same result."

130

Highland Mighty,

14/02/2008 15:10:49
123. Jackie Priest/World View/Winged Messenger/Swiss Tony/SNP Switzerland Branch/whatever you're called,

Your lengthy and insulting rants against any who disagree with you have long been the very lowest point of these boards. Right along with your obsessive need to hurl racist abuse at anything British or English.

Seriously, if this the best you can muster, why don't you do us all a favour and go take a long walk in the Alps every time you feel the urge to even look at this website. I've heard the view from the summit of the Matterhorn is quite spectacular, feel free to see for yourself.
131

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 14/02/2008 15:11:18
Anyway, everyone has had enough of being some satellite of London, most of all Scotland, we are a country not a region.

Decentralise.
132

Disputer,

14/02/2008 15:11:31
....and apparently the C of E schools all follow the National Curriculum. Apparently they have to, so my history quote stands.
133

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 14/02/2008 15:14:52
148
Highland Mighty
Pot Kettle Black me thinks Unionist agenda boy,Media 1, EV, Geoff SA, AM2

Jackie Priest has had far more accurate posting than your dispassionate propaganda.
134

Disputer,

14/02/2008 15:16:45
...not forgetting Highland Mighty / English Voice.
135

kimba,

14/02/2008 15:17:03
146. Pity you cannot come to terms with your place in society,the history of Scotland is violent to say the least and it seems you are one who continues this theory!
136

Disputer,

14/02/2008 15:20:39
153

I'm bored now. You're wrong and won't admit it. You either have never HEARD of the National Curriculum, or you don't understand it. There are guidelines to be followed. It's not a pick-and-mix.

...and how you can say I'm violent after reading my posts is beyond me. Wait a minute..I've got it...you're delusional.

Case solved...as your "lawyer" would say.
137

kimba,

14/02/2008 15:24:09
150. Your quite right until 3 months ago,when they were given consent to follow a more appropriate education system,hence teaching of English history in CofE schools in the Tees Valley.
138

kimba,

14/02/2008 15:26:05
154. Thought you would be,scots always are when they have lost the argument!
139

Reckless,

hffu 14/02/2008 15:28:19
learn new tricks from the biggest bunch of criminals in the business.

The EU hasn't had its accounts audited for 13 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6078982.stm

10 steps to a fascist dictatorship:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy (9/11 and 7/7)
2. Create a gulag (political correctness and Guantánamo Bay)
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press (BBC, Scotsman etc)
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law (Civil Contingencies Act 2004)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

Where are we?

1. Since 1972 The Queen has illegally signed five of the six EU Treaties.

2. The five treaties define and build the EU as an unelected dictatorship.

3. The EU's laws, passed by Westminster, give it the powers of a police state.

4. The sixth EU treaty will complete the abolition of Britain as a nation
- the Queen is due to sign it this year.

A foreign power, the EU, will then rule us, and enforce the laws of a police state.

http://eutruth.org.uk/
140

Disputer,

14/02/2008 15:31:13
Lost an argument? With kimba? ROFL. TEES VALLEY NEWS

"FIVE Tees Valley schools have been named among the 200 with the worst records for truancy in the country." (They probably bunked of Scottish history).

141

Disputer,

14/02/2008 15:42:25
The National Curriculum

1 The national curriculum sets out the STATUTORY entitlement for all students.

2 During key stage 3 pupils learn about significant individuals and events in the history of BRITAIN from the middle ages to the twentieth century. They also learn about key aspects of European and world history.
142

,

14/02/2008 16:04:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
143

Scott Webb*,

14/02/2008 16:06:32
Here is a brilliant movie on history, add it to your favs to watch later as I'm sure the link will be deleted :) http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
144

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 16:12:34
Rules - I'd love to know your sources, since you seem to have access to information that nobody else has regarding pre-roman cultures in the UK.

What is your evidence for one culture, tradition, history, language, constitution and foreign policy, if you understand Briton in the pre-roman times to constitute what we now think of as Wales, England and Scotland? Everything I have read on the bronze age to Iron age shows that burial rites varied even across Scotland, let alone what constitutions the tribes had.

Nation is a much more modern concept, and as such I completely reject its use to describe our iron age ancestors and their societies.

As for the Celts, they are relevant in the extreme, due to the obvious spread of Celtic languages and material culture. You should recall that Celtic is nowadays a definition of culture and language, rather than specific tribes and origins.

I almost agree with thinking that our history started with the end of the ice age, but since we cannot easily demonstrate continual occupation by the same groups since the ice age, I think it a bit extreme.
145

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 16:14:00
Kimba #144- I am not an SNP supporter, but I want to say "Bring it on."
146

Scott Webb*,

14/02/2008 16:17:58
Comment@ 157 Reckless, good links matey :)
147

Iain's,

Barcelona 14/02/2008 16:21:32


So, "WE MAY be well versed in the Viking invasion and the exploits of William Wallace, but we know far too little about what went on in between, one of Scotland's most eminent historians warned yesterday"

Not a lot happened. Why?

Fact. Battle of Largs, 1263; Battle of Stirling Bridge 1297.

'Eminent Historian'. I hope he has been misquoted.

p.s.I was stopped doing history when I was 12.

Is this the state of current history teaching or is is a reflection on the current state of journalism in Scotland?


148

Mary of Argyll,

Bathgate 14/02/2008 16:23:20
The first bit of Scottish History I would like explained to Scottish schoolchildren is why our present monarch should really be called Elizabeth I of Scotland and II of England instead of just using her English title of Elizabeth II. I really resent the fact that the British public ignore the fact that Queen Mary of Scotland was our monarch when Elizabeth I was theirs. Why do we allow this ignorance to be perpetuated? Perhaps 'Now's the time' to put a stop to it.
149

MR.CYNICAL,

a happy place 14/02/2008 16:33:22
I WOULD TAKE HISTORY OFF THE CURRICULUM AND JUST LET MODERN STUDIES DO A BIT OF BACKGROUND BEFORE EACH TOPIC THEY TEACH.
150

Upbeat,

14/02/2008 16:42:34
Now there is even someone here today who thinks it wise to come here onto this thread to claim that "history is not about facts" see # 138

I imagine this says all that needs to be said about the failures in the modern education system.

So what is History composed of if it is not supposed to be the recording and recollection of historical fact ?

Certainly the interpretation of events in the historical record is an aspect of the study of History, but this is the real concern. . Interpretation is not balanced or correct when viewed from anaother age. . Only the historical record of fact is the base for all serious understanding about events in other societies. Interpretation of events that are not part of modern life experience is "revisionism" in the wrong hands.

It is against the rewriting of 'history', to conform with modern values and standards of behaviour, that we should all remain on our guard.
151

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 14/02/2008 16:48:26
I hope professor Devine will include in his proposed curriculums, the historic reality behind his statements...

(a) ...crucial that today's Scots understand that the Union was voted for by the then Scottish parliament and not a successful English invasion as many would falsely believe.

Historical reality is that the so called parliament... actually a non-elected, establishment, crony group of aristocrats and vested interest unionists (the infamous 'parcel of rogues') later richly rewarded, passed this bill against the opposition and fury of the Scottish people who had no vote. Riots ensued throughout all Scottish cities to such an extent that the Edinburgh Sheriff (Captain of the Guard) was publicly hanged by the mob. And all this happening while a heavily armed English force waited, poised at the border, for the bill to pass or not.

(b)... How the battle of Bannockburn etc ... paved the way to a peaceful union.

Historic reality is that military conquest of Scotland was replaced by economic subjugation, so that after years of destruction and invasion an exhausted small nation, facing bankrupcy after the failed Darien Scheme (hatched in London) was brought to its knees economically.
152

Sam,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 17:08:57
The site of the Battle of Falkirk is a short 8 miles from Edinburgh. It is within just west of Linlithgow within sight of the market cross, still green field after all the centuries. The location is well discribed in translations of English after action reports. All history is family history. The blood of Bruce's army flows today in the veins of Scots.
153

John PH,

Fife 14/02/2008 17:16:33
67 Bumkin

Good point. I'm sure that this will be looked at very carefully, when we take our independence, to ensure that the land was'nt taken by, "Might is Right".

We could find out that the so-called land owners are only squatters.



154

Shuggie,

Canada 14/02/2008 17:33:40
The old "Qually" was a horrible exam designed to keep admissions from primary to secondary schools at manageable levels (two out of ten in the case of my class).
However, in preparing for it we not only learned British but European and Imperial history, so that rather useless residual memories of Hapsburgs, Hohenzollerns and Indian princely states persist!
155

kimba,

14/02/2008 18:02:08
163. You really are a nation of bile ridden twonkers,who would be back in the dark ages if not for England.
156

grannie,

East Kilbride Glasgow 14/02/2008 18:02:44
History is only dull or exciting and brought to life by teachers. More than 60 years ago when I attended Primary school. I had a wonderful teacher.Our class knew about our Scottish History because our teacher was fervently Scottish and covered all the important events from the Viking invasions to the highland clearances to the then WW11. There's not enough teachers like her these days
157

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 18:03:04
126

Aye all true enough except it wisnae just Jacobites who were slaughtered indiscriminately after the battle it was Scots it wasnt just Jacobites who were denied the right to wear their clan tartans or play pipes or bear arms or meet in public in groups bigger than 3 individuals or speak anything other than English it was all Scots everywhere in Scotland right up until Queen Victoria forced Parliament to recind these laws.
It was acts such as these and the highland clearances which are more responsible for why Scots kept their own Identities rather than allow ourselves to be quietly integrated into the greater English empire.
Its why we kept our own laws our own flag and our own seperate identity within the union.
Lest we forget.
158

kimba,

14/02/2008 18:10:53
Maybe you should bring yourselves into thr 21st century,and let the past remain there,scotland was brought to it's knees once by England and the way salmond is going on it could happen again.
159

Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth[skeptic griggsy],

Blythe,Ga. 14/02/2008 18:27:45
I salute the Prof. Devine! Would that someone here would do the same for my state and nation!
I am so glad to see that Scotland joined voluntarily the Union! Scotland is a great nation and does well inside the Kingdom just as Georgia does well in our Union!
160

Edward Keith,

Fort Lauderdale FL 14/02/2008 18:46:30
As an american with a Scottish grandfather.I find scotish history just as vital to me as american history.During my years in school in was imperitive to be taught american history. It should be that way there to in scotland. Good luck to your country Edward Keith Fort Lauderdale FL
161

Barry Leotard,

14/02/2008 18:49:31
Edward Keith, what are you talking about? Isn't a DVD of braveheart enough?
162

Drat,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 18:50:58
Looking at the listed headings in the article it almost reads as an advertisement for The Museum of Scotland. Nor surprising though, as the professor was on the board of trustees prior to its opening. But you'd better get along there soon to see what he and his colleagues were doing in their interpretation of Scottish history, before it's all changed by the current incumbents.
163

Disputer,

14/02/2008 18:52:53
kimba the troll...thick as a brick...a racist wee (ahem) nyaff. Away & raffle yersel'.
164

Calum Crubag,

14/02/2008 19:34:30
Surely it was an economoic conquest by England. Our ships had long since been attacked by the English and our ill-thought out Darien Scheme destroyed in part at least by the same warlike Enlgish.

Whilst our MPs were bribed and threatened, the Scots themselves rioted on the streets. This doesen't sound like a voluntary union.
165

Russell M,

Stirling 14/02/2008 19:40:29
Know history and understand it. Try to look past your personal advantage. For fifty years I lived abroad, so I'm, potentially, not as contaminated with British (Unionist) propaganda as those who have lived in the UK.

As observed by William Pitt (the Elder), 1st Earl of Chatham (1707-1778): English Prime Minister in his famous eulogy on the Highland Regiments, delivered in Westminster in 1766, the members of the Westminster Parliament have had and may always have a jealousy or even a fear of us from the North. Our fidelity in friendship is without equal, but our wrath toward betrayal is their worst nightmare. So after three hundred years of partnership the relationship is a bit complicated.

I think this line from a film says a lot. "There's a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom." And I am here to make sure that they have it.
166

Tobytoo,

Southington 14/02/2008 19:46:35
Well I guess that I have had my history lesson for today. I just wish that Kimba was not such nasty person with her answers to other commenters as they are uncalled for
167

Bush Doctor,

14/02/2008 20:00:50
Are we also teaching that although the union of 1707 was peaceful one, it was a shameful one? It only came about through the bribes of those voting and made it possible for Scotland to become the wicked counterpart of England and forever tarnished the image of Scotland as a humble people's people.
168

Hunky Dorey,

Glasgow 14/02/2008 20:53:54
Whats all this guff about? We here in Scotland are a defeated nation. We are "subjects" of a foreign Queen. A government in England pulls the strings and we jump.We were England's lackeys and done her dirty work when she was creating a reign of terror in pursuit of empire building.So! lets cut the crap! we are in fact Englishmen with Scottish accents.
169

Thomas1,

14/02/2008 20:56:17
Don't forget the future knobends
170

Conan the Librarian™,

14/02/2008 21:09:27
188
How can you forget the future knobends?They haven't been born yet...
171

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 14/02/2008 21:12:09
Without checking other comments,

Would the author or researcher of this little piece like to note that the Union of the Parliaments in 1707 did not create the UK. It created Great Britain.

Please allow your journalists a spot of anal clenchion, Scotsman.
172

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 14/02/2008 21:32:57
Here, here, ColB.

I do believe that the direct translation of knobend or, more used dickhead, into German is Schwanzkopf.
173

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 14/02/2008 21:49:54
Kimba isREALLY one pitiful example of under-educated nonsense.

Kimba, dear chap -or chappesse - when you have two doctorates as do I THEN we can discuss your flagrant errors in logic and understanding and basic learning skills.

Until then, TTFN.
174

,

14/02/2008 22:05:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
175

Conan the Librarian™,

14/02/2008 22:19:03
194
Heh.State an instance of Methalions copying anothers moniker to try and confuse and obfuscate debate.

It isn't Meths who is sad.

By the way...it took you long enuogh;-)
176

Conan the Librarian™,

14/02/2008 22:20:21
Grr. ENOUGH.
177

Conan the Librarian™,

14/02/2008 22:28:01
200
:-)
178

Conan the Librarian™,

14/02/2008 22:28:52
:-)
179

d.j.,

14/02/2008 22:28:59
The single most important factor in being English is the ability to speak English.
How could you call an English man or woman English if they couldn't speak English; absolutely ridicules.

It would be laughable and no-one could or would believe you and quite rightly so.
180

d.j.,

14/02/2008 22:36:46
Scotland people really need to wake up and accept that their is little or no difference between the Scots and the English in 2008.
181

,

14/02/2008 22:38:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
182

Conan the Librarian™,

14/02/2008 22:40:29
203
Example?
183

,

14/02/2008 22:48:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
184

Conan the Librarian™,

14/02/2008 22:51:15
LOL.And your hobby is cyberimpersonation?(Have I just invented a new word?)
185

,

14/02/2008 23:02:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
186

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 14/02/2008 23:08:10
202, d.j. There is indeed very little difference between a Scotsman and an Englishman these days. Apart from the fact that a Scot is a Scot and an Eng is an Eng.

There is very little difference between a German and a Dutch (Dutch is a bastardisation of Deutsch).

Yes there is vey little difference between all Euro states, nicht wahr?

I totally agree with you. You should use the pc "and elsewhere" to qualify your statement.
187

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 14/02/2008 23:26:38
Convention of space fakeys here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfMstFqRQBc

This one features Ayrshire fakey.
188

,

14/02/2008 23:37:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
189

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 14/02/2008 23:38:47
202

Not much difference between Canadians and Yanks or Aussies and Kiwis or but you dont see them rushing off to join in a union.
190

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 14/02/2008 23:40:27
Fakey Ayrshire, was that a riposte?

You really need to do better than that.
191

,

14/02/2008 23:44:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
192

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 14/02/2008 23:50:36
Fakey Ayrshire,

I think not. Mine was relevant to you. Yours was not relevant to me. Yours was just a childish reaction. Bit like your faking instead of having something original in your online name.
193

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 14/02/2008 23:52:11
Fakey Ayrshire. At least we know what you watch on youtube.
194

Jock Tamson,

Ayrshire space's labotatory 15/02/2008 00:02:35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPpyUUQo4do
195

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 15/02/2008 00:08:51
Fakey Ayrshire,

This one's for you,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXq3hO82cTY
196

tassiestag,

rosebery 15/02/2008 07:35:07
i am thankfull that i am able to read professor devine's books,i know several scots in australia,whos knowledge of scottish history comes mainly from teatowels printed in china............and yes those people were educated in scotland.
197

Tomdonald,

Falkirk 15/02/2008 08:33:36
Between Hadrian and Glencoe is not too important. Glencoe sets the scene for 2008. The Campbells with the English against the Macdonalds! So 1688 to 2008 should be the core to blind Alec with history to coin a phrase!
I haven't had time to see if these comments have already been posted. Later perhaps.
198

carrottop,

Dumfries 15/02/2008 09:54:29
THE ENLIGHTENMENT
What was the point when everyone just went to sleep again when it was finished. If we can get rid of Labour for good in Scotland then we can maybe just experience a period of enlightenment again without all the lefties telling us how to think (or not).
199

kimba,

15/02/2008 10:58:46



* New New
* Reply Reply
* Reply all Reply all
* Forward Forward
* Delete Delete
* Junk Junk
* Print
*
* Next message
*
* Help
* Options Options

Press Release The Scottish Parliamentarians aim at land grab from England?
From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
Sent: 14 February 2008 19:39:49
To: RobinTilbrook@aol.com

Press Release

The Scottish Parliamentarians aim at land grab from England



Following the news that both Christine Grahame (a Scottish National Party Member of the Scottish Parliament), wants to “bring the English town of Berwick back into the Scottish fold” and also that Liberal Democrat MSP, Jeremy Purvis would also like to “annexe up to 20 miles of Northumberland, including Holy Island.”



English Democrats Chairman, Robin Tilbrook said “We have previously had a good relationship with the SNP – but to be honest we are disappointed and somewhat surprised that a Scottish Nationalist MSP has chosen to champion this dubious cause. After all, Alex Salmond, has previously stated that he and his party have “no territorial claims” on the English border lands – and that obviously includes Berwick-upon-Tweed. Berwick has been part of England since 1482 – a full decade before Christopher Columbus discovered America.

So England has a better historical claim to Berwick than the Americans have to America!



He went on “Unlike Gordon Brown and the Westminster establishment, the English Democrats are committed to defending the integrity of the borders of England and of the basic human rights of our people. Instead of their pathetic ‘grass is greener’ mind games with the people of Berwick, we suggest that Purvis and Grahame get on with their job of being Members of the Scottish Parliament and representing their Scottish constituents – and to leave English business to the people of England”.



“Sooner rather than later, the Barnett Formula bonanza will be scrapped, and whe
200

kimba,

15/02/2008 11:00:59
“Sooner rather than later, the Barnett Formula bonanza will be scrapped, and when it is, there will be no doubt which side of the border will benefit. Instead of shipping billions to Scotland, taxes raised in England will once again be spent on public services for the benefit of the people of England – including those in Berwick-upon-Tweed.”



201

kimba,

15/02/2008 11:09:33
There is some "history" courtesy of the English Democrats!
202

Dougie Welsh,

Halifax 17/02/2008 20:00:38
Scots should be made aware that the Act of Union of 1707 that tied us to England was not approved by a full, freely chosen Scottish Parliament, but by a small gathering of folk that owed much of their comfortable lives to English owners.

Since it was OOR KING what took over England, it should ALWAYS have been "The United Kingdom of Scotland, England and Wales"!
203

Dr.Kip,

Toronto, Canada 05/05/2008 16:25:58
Since I left Scotland in 1972 and was educated prior to doing so, I am not part of the post 1980 educated (or unenlightend)group. I was born and raised in the Stirling area and as such my boyhood heroes were Wallace and Bruce. We were taught Scots history in Primary School by our different teachers. The problem in history back then as it is now is the tendancy to have students go through rote memorisation of dates. It is the time period and what happened that is important, along with what the repercussions, both good and bad of events were, the time period is only important to put things into historical perspective, ie it is important to know that the battle of Stirling Bridge took place before the battle of Bannockburn and that they both took place before Culloden. (not that one was 1296, the other 1314, and the last 1745) Which was Scots being defeated by other Scots, one group of clan chiefs bought off by a king still claiming allegience to the prince of Rome, and the other group of clan chiefs being bought off by the sitting king in Westminister. The hollywoodisation of Scots history is the greatest diservice the country of my birth has ever had. We never gained our freedom by a chain smoking midget with a bad American accent, (never mind Scots). The most disturbing part of the piece of historical inaccuracy is Bruce betraying Wallace. Unless there has been recent findings, the two never met, let alone Bruce betraying him. Braveheart is a good piece of drama but it is only that.
Like another poster here I had to chose between History and Geography in one of those strange quirks of fate at school. The interesting thing about Geography though is you cannot understand it without understanding the history of an area.
I further find it remarkable that a historical debate on here has been split along religous and political grounds. The ONLY nation to ever defeat the Scots is Scotland herself, if we quit fighting amongst ourselves we might have reached even greater
204

Dr.Kip,

05/05/2008 16:27:47
Oops went over allowed space ergo I continue here....

The ONLY nation to ever defeat the Scots is Scotland herself, if we quit fighting amongst ourselves (see comment about Culloden above) we might have reached even greater status as a nation. However it is this propensity for debate that has also made us great. The English have always bought off Scots lairds with promises and increased land and power and with it wealth, see comment about Culloden above).And whilst a unionist I was never under any illusions that it was James VI that took over the English throne, not James I that took over the Scottish one. The world is getting smaller and to survive we need less government not more. I am for a strong Scotland within the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
I am British by birth
Scots by the grace of God
and Canadian by choice.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.