| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| George |
Scottish history compulsory in higherFrom the BBC websitehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7103561.stm Seems like a positive move. 
|
||||||||
| azzuri |
Certainly does.
Here's an article on this topic by the Herald: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1844605.0.0.php Oh, and I'm moving this to the right section... 
|
||||||||
| mairead |
Aye it is a very positive step and it was no surprise to me when the students who were asked a few questions, ie 'When was the battle of Culloden fought' and could not answer. After all, for many decades it was forbidden to teach Scottish history in Scotland's schools. | ||||||||
| Aventinian |
From a cursory skim, it was always part of the syllabus. It'd presumably be a poor student who went in to an examination entirely unprepared for a whole topic which could arise.
When? The 1740s? |
||||||||
| mairead |
No Aventinian, It was forbidden for decades, right up until the early/mid 1960's.
Up until then history was about English battles and events and bits about the Romans and topics such as Russia and the French revolution. Most Scottish schoolkids could tell you about the Magna Carta and the Battle of Hastings, the Norman Conquest etc. but battles like Culloden, Bannockburn, the exploits of Wallace, De Moray and Bruce etc. were never taught in Scotland. As a schoolgirl from 1946-57 I certainly receive no tuition on Scottish history at school, nor did my elder brother or younger sister and I am sure you will find this to be the case with many. Pathetic, don't you agree? |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
That's rather funny, because I'm quite sure my mother and father mentioned being educated about the likes of Bruce and Wallace in school. Yes, in fact I definitely recall my mother discussing being taught about Mary Queen of Scots when I was a lad and learning it myself at school. |
||||||||
| azzuri |
It was only ever optional.
My friend is a history teacher and will be delighted with this news. I wasn't taught a jot of Scottish history in the 4 years I had it at secondary school. Not that I blame the teacher, he was merely preparing us the best he could for the most likely exam. I honestly think we should teach history at a local level, not just a Scottish one. I would have loved to have learned about Ayrshire history such as Burns and Bruce at Secondary school. |
||||||||
| George |
A few questions:
1. When was the battle of Hastings? 2. Who was English King at Hastings and how did he die? 3. Who were the English fighting in that battle? 4. In the English civil war the war was between the roundheads and who? 5. Who was the leader of the roundheads? 6. What date was the great fire of London? 7. Where is the fire commonly thought to have originated? 8. How many wives had Henry VIII. 9. Who was Guy Fawkes? And now: 1. When was the battle of Stirling bridge? 2. Who were the two generals in charge of the Scots? 3. How did the Scots win this battle. 4. When was the battle of Bannockburn? 5. Who was the Scottish King at the time. 6. The King fought an English Knight on the eve of battle, how did he defeat the Knight? 7. How did the Scots win this battle? 8. Roughly when were the Highland clearances? 9. When was the Declaration of Arbroath drafted? What 9 questions did you all score higher on.....if any? At what point in your life did you become aware of the answers? Ask friends and members of the family and note the result. |
||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Ah, but these are more difficult that they first appear.
"Who was English King at Hastings and how did he die?" Not from an arrow in the eye as often stated, that is a misunderstanding from the Bayeux Tapestry. "In the English civil war the war was between the roundheads and who?" Depends whether you consider the term to extend to Wales, Scotland and Ireland or not. "How did the Scots win this battle?" Again, historical interpretation views this differently. Some would mention the presence of Templars, and others that this was hooey. "Roughly when were the Highland clearances?" Clearances of a kind were taking place in parts of Scotland as early as the 17th century. They're arguably still going on. |
||||||||
| will live from Glasgow |
i did Higher History a few years ago and Advanced higher one year after that. in the higher case the exam booklet is HUGE with upwards of 9 topics each with 3 questions to answer. The teachers teach you 3 main topics for higher, and you are to answer one question from the sections you were taught.
In advanced higher (where by the way i did the scottish wars of independence) the exam booklet is pretty much the same. In both cases my school did not teach us random subjects or teach one subject one year and another the next, they simply taught us the subjects they had the books for, and i dont know how they would now be able to teach the entire higher class abour scottish history. These history books are hugely expensive,this new initiative may be easy for the private schools and those in better areas but for,well,bog standard ones like mine it will be a lot more difficult. |
||||||||
| mairead |
Aventinian,
You are correct about Mary Queen of Scots, she did get a mention when I was at primary school, but only inso far as she got her head chopped of for trying to take the English throne. Also a brief mention of Wallace was that he was an outlaw who took up arms agains his king. Bruce and Bannockburn got no mention at all. Yes there was a few, very few, brief comments on Scottish history, from an English point of view of course. Hastings, King Alfred Magna Carta, Henry V111, Kichard 3rd The Lionheart The crusades Oliver Cromwell Yes I learned all about these and many more. |
||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
I have a higher in history and never did scottish history at all.
I first done anything on scotland at university but that was mainly politics based. |
||||||||
| will live from Glasgow |
i knew more of those scottish answers than english ones, most of which i did get taught at school,but i didnt get to highschool until after 19995,you might call that the braveheart effect. Did my 6th year dissertation on William Wallace's contribution to the Wars of Independence,and came out of it liking Andrew Moray a lot more, in fact now i come to think about it i reckon i could still recite the important bits of the declaration of Arbroath, no not just the while a hundred of us remain bit,but the restrictions placed on the King and the Scots being the lost tribes of Israel. All of which i learned at school,though as this wasnt till 6 year i guess you have to hold on a long time to learn Scottish History | ||||||||
| mairead |
Wlfg,
You were a more modern pupil/student. I went to shool in the 1940's/50's (geez yes I am auld) and our history was definately NOT taught then, but I am glad that in recent years more Scots have been learning it. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
So those who didn't learn anything about Scottish history in school have turned into separatists, whereas those who did learn some Scottish history have remained in touch with planet earth. That ought to tell you something. | ||||||||
| Holebender |
That tells me you are prone to sweeping generalisations. Your assertion is based on a sample of... how many... three, is it?
It also tells me you use perjorative terms like "separatist". Would you care to be addressed as a "dependent"? |
||||||||
| will live from Glasgow |
actually as a student of history id say that george's questions arent a great way of testing knowledge of scottish history, the english ones cover a period of a bout 600 years while the scottish ones cover about 30 with one 18th century one thrown in.
and even if im not a separatist i still think getting taught Scottish history was very useful and interesting |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I wouldn't bother to count if I were you, it wasn't really a scientific study. 
Why is separatist pejorative? Doesn't it seem like a reasonable shorthand to describe a political position founded squarely in the aim of being separate?
It would depend on the context. What does it mean? I have two dependents. I doubt my own mother has referred to me in that particular way for a couple of decades. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Very true. But they are a useful illustration of what separatists consider as history. Unless it's something that can be blamed on them, it doesn't really count.
Agreed. |
||||||||
| mairead |
Cor Agent,
What a lot of rubbish. I don't remember sayiny anything other than I was not taught Scottish history at School. If there is an award for dumb comments, you would win it hands down . |
||||||||
| William_Cleland |
If you could move beyond your usual zeal of the convert Nat bashing for just once I think you might want to consider the possibility that George's list has more to do with the fact that The Wars of Independence are one of the few aspects of Scottish history that actually have been highlighted in recent decades. Even in that context though we only ever get heavily edited highlights. Edward Bruce's invasion of Ireland in 1315 or Edward Balliol's coronation at Scone in 1332 with English support just five years after the Treaty of Northampton (which in the version of Scottish history we typically get taught is usually portrayed as the end of the story with a "they all lived happily ever after type" statement) are key aspects of what happened that I personally doubt even 5% of Scotland's population are aware of despite the fact that it would be easy to fit these events into a them blaming narrative if "separatists" really controlled the agenda on this. |
||||||||
| Holebender |
Separatist is pejorative precisely because it describes a position of wanting to be separate. I have never heard or read a supporter of Scotland's independence state that he or she wants to be separate. Separate from what? Do you think independence supporters want to physically remove Scotland from its present position? Do you think independence supporters want to isolate Scotland in some way from its surroundings? The word is only ever used by opponents of Scotland's independence and they use it in an attempt to paint a picture of an independent Scotland which is cut adrift and isolated. That's why it's pejorative. The reality of the situation is that Scotland within the Union is far more isolated from the rest of the world than it could ever be as an independent state. Right now Scotland is shrouded by the veil of the UK and rarely shows its face to the rest of the world. |
||||||||
| Holebender |
The fact that the English history examples cover nearly 600 years while the Scottish ones cover only 30 years is interesting in itself; it shows that we know far more about a far wider sweep of England's history than we do about Scotland's. The late 13th/early 14th Century is about the only period of Scotland's history which everyone has heard something about. Compare that with a more general knowledge of England's history and what does that tell us? | ||||||||
| will live from Glasgow |
No it only shows that those were the questions he chose. in the interests of actually testing scottish history general knowledge here are some questions that are slightly more widespread most of which i was taught at school :
1. a) when was Hadrians Wall built b) when was the Antonine Wall built 2. a) When was the battle of Largs b) In terms of Scotland's Geography what was the result of the battle 3 a) How did Alexander III die b) why did his successor never rule Scotland 4 a) Who was chosen to be King of Scotland during the "Great Cause" b) What did this king do that was used as the excuse for an English invasion 5 a) Who was William Wallace's main ally at the battle of Stirling Bridge b) Why was Robert the Bruce excommunicated just after his coronation 6 a) Who was the Declaration of Arbroath sent to b) When the treaty of Northampton ended the Wars of independence, who was the King of England who signed it? 7 a) What territory did Scotland recieve as part of the Marriage of James III b)What battle caused the death of James III 8 a) Where did Mary Queen of Scots grow up b) Which one of her husbands was killed in the murder at Kirk o' field 9 a) Who led the protestant reformation in Scotland b) What religion was James VI 10 a)During the English Civil War who did the army of Scotland back b) When was the Darien Scheme finally abandoned BAM from Roman Scotland to just before union in 10 easyish questions, and the majority of these i know from either primary school or high school |
||||||||
| Holebender |
And it will be interesting to see how many people here know even half the answers. The membership here has a particular interest in Scotland and is hardly representative of the population at large but I'm willing to bet that not many of even this site's membership will get over half the answers right.
And if I'm right it will just reinforce what I said earlier about us generally knowing far more of England's history than Scotland's. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Of course I welcome more teaching of Scottish History in schools. I think it is shocking that most kids learn so little about the history of their own country.
Agentmancuso wrote "those who didn't learn anything about Scottish history in school have turned into separatists, whereas those who did learn some Scottish history have remained in touch with planet earth." Holebender says "That tells me you are prone to sweeping generalisations". I certainly won't make any generalisation, I'm quite prepared to acknowledge maybe my own experience wasn't typical, maybe the county of Angus is different, or maybe it was just my particular school, but I did learn some Scottish History at school in the late 40s and early 50s. It was a long time ago, but I'm sure I learned about the Battle of Largs, Alexander the 3rd, Wallace, Bruce, MQS, Knox, and the Covenant while I was still in primary school. I didn't do any "British" history until I got to secondary school. Mind you my history teacher at secondary school was well known to be a Scottish Nationalist, so although he taught history in a wider context he always tried to make sure we knew what was happening in Scotland in relation to various wars, political happenings, industrial revolutions, etc. I left school at fifteen without taking any qualifications at all, but with some background in Scottish History. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I managed the correct answer to all the questions except 10b, where I guessed too early, and 10a which I didn't answer, because I don't think it oversimplifies the civil wars too much to be a sensible question.
Good quiz though |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
You are correct of course. The emphasis placed on the entirely indecisive Battle of Bannockburn is only the most salient example of this partial approach to history. |
||||||||
| mairead |
The "Indecisive" battle of Bannockburn was a most decisive victory for the Scots. Try reading up on it. | ||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Try not to fall down every open trapdoor mairead. Of course the battle ended in victory for the Scots. But it was still entirely indecisive in terms of the Scots' desire to obtain recognition of their independence from the English crown. That was not obtained by direct military victory, but only by evasion of confrontation whenever possible and a long diplomatic campaign. | ||||||||
| agentmancuso |
England. Pretty obvious really.
I would not be in the least surprised if some did. Dave has probably drawn up the plans to do just that. |
||||||||
| Economist |
Like Michael Fry, for instance? "Studying the Union is bad for your Unionism" 
|
||||||||
| mairead |
Agent,
I didn't fall through any trapdoor. You stated that the battle of Bannockburn was indecisive. It was in fact a very decisive victory for the Scots, literally speaking. If you intended your statement to mean other things, you should have stated what you meant. I don't read minds I'm afraid. |
||||||||
| inga |
Re: Scottish history compulsory in higher
I'm surprised it isn't already compulsory. I remember when I was at school in the 90s, we were taught plenty of Scottish history, from Wallace to the Jacobites, and also Scotland's role in the industrial revolution, WW1, etc. Nonetheless, politicians were talking about a dearth of such history in the curriculum. I never understood. I couldn't wait for it to end -- just for a bit of variety. The only break we got from Scottish history was a wee bit on the Aztecs and on German unification. ~Inga |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
You don't read posts with any degree of precision either. Context is everything; in the context William and I were discussing (that of the lengthy time-frame over which the wars of independence took place) the statement was entirely accurate. Unfortunately, it triggered your oversensitive identity buzzer. Maybe if you didn't view history as a sort of football match in which you support 'your' team, you'd follow the discussion a bit more easily. |
||||||||
| Holebender |
Not that you had any intention of pushing any "identity" buttons with your original statement, of course.
BTW, I disagree that Bannockburn was indecisive; the English army was trounced in the field and never again ventured across the border to attempt to enforce Edward's claims over Scotland. I agree that Bruce had already won the war before Bannockburn, but the battle finally settled the matter. After June of 1314 England's claims were nothing but empty rhetoric. |
||||||||
| jeeves |
Re: Scottish history compulsory in higher
I went to school during the 90s also but hardly got any Scottish history. I remember in Primary School studying the Romans, Mary Queen of Scots and Guy Fawkes. For Burnsīs day we had a poetry comp which was decent except didn't really study him or his life, just had to learn the poems basically. On St Andrews day we ate haggis for lunch, that was it. High School and studied the Romans again along with WWII and what a disaster Germany was and how great the RAF were. I chose to end my history career there. Took advanced Higher Modern Studies/Politics and ended up reading scottish history books in my own time. I wish it had been compulsory to learn Scottish History. I was chatting to 2 Irish lads the other day and felt embarassed at how much they knew about Irish history. The problem is that its common to meet foreigners that know so much about their nations past. Personally I'd scrap home economics classes and instead of ditching some of the current history topics just include more Scottish stuff, or have a 'cluture' class where you study different cultures and why people are different, like an evaluation of stereotypes. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Re: Scottish history compulsory in higher
To be fair, there's not really much more relevantly Scottish things you could do in relation to St Andrew. I suppose you could always have been told the myth of how the flag came about, but since it's generally accepted to be a steaming pile of excretia, it doesn't really belong in a school.
Hmm, I don't know about that. Americans, Canadians etc don't seem to have much of a grasp of it generally.
I think the fashion these days is actually to have more of them! It seems plenty of schools nowadays run "leavers' courses" which tell the little 'uns how to budget, cook, do the washing etc... |
||||||||
| Holebender |
At least Home Economics has some practical value.
I'd scrap RE. Religion has no place in education. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Religion is the greatest social motivation behind damn-near every major change in the history of the world. What you say above is rather akin to cancelling history lessons because 'Nazism and Communism have no place in education'. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I didn't actually. It was aimed at William, who doesn't appear to have your emotional trouble with these things.
That's a valid argument, but I doubt it reflects the spirit in which the invasions of Northern England, or the decade of three-way negotiations with the Papacy, or the eventual Treaty of Edinburgh in 1328 were viewed by either the English or Scottish crowns. |
||||||||
| Holebender |
The fact that the Scots could harry northern England at will just shows how impotent England was. The campaign had the single aim of forcing Edward to recognise the obvious and settle the dispute which he had already lost, as did the negotiations with the Papacy. | ||||||||
| Holebender |
I have no problem with lessons about religions. Religion, per se, should not be taught and should be discouraged as much as possible. It is completely ridiculous to segregate young children along religious lines, as if anyone that immature has any idea what they believe! |
||||||||
| mairead |
I gave up on religions long ago when I realised that Religions of any and all sorts have been the cause of almost every war since time immemorial and the cause of billions of countless deaths and bloodshed. Aye, going back as far in history as we can, to the human sacrifices for religious reasons to a variety of Gods.
Evil, not good emanates from religions, in the form of hatred and intolerance between the religions who all believe theirs is the true one. Wonder what the creator thinks of it all. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
This reads just as clearly if you substitute 'nationalism' for 'religion'. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
True. But I doubt very much that the English crown saw its impotence as any more than temporary. With a few years, they were back again, crowning alternative Scottish kings. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Yes. Encouraging children to attach too much importance to purely chance labels of identity can only be counterproductive. |
||||||||
| inga |
I'm in favour of RE inasmuch as it teaches kids about religion, rather than religion itself as lore. ~Inga |
||||||||
| inga |
I think in British -- and Western democratic society, we have this bad ethic, whereby we treat religious ideas as automatically more exalted than non-religious ideas, merely forthat they are religious. In an attempt to treat religions equally, we have given religion an advantage over non-religion. For example, the mere fact that an organisation is a church, makes it worthy of being enlisted by the government in order to fulfill government educational policy. Why a church, of all things? Sikhs are excused from wearing motorcycle helmets -- but the excuse is "it's their religion" -- no more detail required. If it wasn't a religion, but just a treasured belief, further justification would be needed. Here is one fact that all religious people agree on: Most religions are false. All religious people agree that all other religions are false, and that therefore most religions are false. Surely, if anything, the fact that an idea is "religious" should be a disadvantage, because everybody already agrees that most religions are false. ~Inga |
||||||||
| inga |
Forbidden how and by whom, and in what words? ~Inga |
||||||||
| inga |
Re: Scottish history compulsory in higher
In primary school, we were for three or four years given a solid diet of nothing but Burns and Jacobite history. Then, in secondary history, it was either Wallace or Scotland's role in the industrial revolution. A bit of Aztec and German history was the only non-Scottish history that got taught. ~Inga |
||||||||
| mairead |
LOL Agentmancuso,
Didn't they teach you the difference between politics and religion when you went to school. Oh Dear, you're education has suffered.
|
||||||||
| mairead |
Inga.
Probably by some Westminster government, and it is not so long ago, just a couple of years in fact, since a Scottish teacher was pulled up for teaching it to her primary school pupils. Those posters who were taught any Scottish history apparently went to School after the mid 1960's. I attended school in the 40's and 50's. My children, in the early/late 70's were not taught it either but learned all about Russian history at secondary school. I approached the scool re. this and was told that Scottish history was not in the curriculum. Neither of my parents were ever taught it either. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
In practice, the difference is often minimal. For example, just look at all the simpletons who labour under the delusion that asserting their 'identity' as loudly as possible is a form of political activity, and the parallel group of simpletons who labour under the delusion that asserting their 'identity' as loudly as possible is a form of religious activity. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
A knowledge of religious ideas and behaviour are absolutely crucial to any understanding of human history, culture, philosophy, or politics.
Historical reasons I suppose. The problem for me is not that churches can set up schools, but that only groups like churches can set up schools.
It's an interesting question. My own take on this would be that it is reasonable to allow Sikhs this exemption, on the grounds that by insisting on helmet-wearing the government is close to trespassing on areas over which it has no legitimate authority.
I don't think that would apply to Buddhists.
|
||||||||
| mairead |
All religions are, and have always been, began by men. Usually to the benefit of those who initiated them. Take the oldest religion in the world, whatever it was, it was begun by a man. | ||||||||
| Anthropos |
I don't think there is any consensus over what is the oldest form of religion, but I think that with religion/belief in the supernatural being fairly universal there clearly must be some sort of benefit from it in terms of human evolution. Cave paintings may indicate that human belief in gods/spirits pre-existed the birth of agriculture and the cultivation of animals, so the earliest religions may not have been invented as such but have always been part of the human mind. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Not many religions are 'founded' as such, and there are plenty of matriarchal religions. |
||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Such as? | ||||||||