Education Curriculum (1820 Martyrs)
Members' business today is motion S1M-2101, in the name of Mr Gil Paterson, on James Wilson, John Baird and Andrew Hardie.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the sacrifice of the three 1820 martyrs, James Wilson from Strathaven and John Baird and Andrew Hardie from Glasgow, who were hanged and beheaded in the 1820 rising which fought for social and economic justice, workers' rights and an independent Scottish parliament and believes that the history of their struggle should be included in the education curriculum in order to mark the anniversaries, on 30 August and 3 September, of their sacrifice for Scottish rights 181 years ago.
On a bright summer's afternoon, on 30 August 1820, a crowd of 20,000 people gathered on Glasgow green to watch the execution of a Strathaven weaver, James Wilson.
After taking part in a simple religious service and drinking the customary glass of wine, Wilson, dressed in white, was dragged to the bottom of the scaffold in a black, horse-drawn hurdle. He then mounted the scaffold with his captors, to hisses and shouts of "Murder!" from the sympathetic crowd. The 60-year-old radical was hanged, then beheaded. The sentence of quartering could not be carried out because of the hostility of the crowd. A few days later, in Broad Street, Stirling, Andrew Hardie and John Baird met the same fate as Wilson.
Those three men were murdered by the state for believing in workers' rights and Scottish independence. Why do so few people in Scotland know about that vital part of Scottish history? Far from schoolchildren having any knowledge of that episode, even history teachers in Scotland are generally ignorant of the story.
The Tolpuddle martyrs are widely known about in schools and universities in Scotland and extensively known about within the trade union movement. In fact, the trade union movement has funded a museum in Dorset to the memory of the Tolpuddle martyrs. I do not want in any way to minimise the sacrifice made by the Tolpuddle martyrs. The horror of being transported to the colonies was no soft option, but they were able to return to England after a couple of years and now have a place—rightly—in the history books.
What is the difference between the Tolpuddle martyrs and the Scottish 1820 martyrs? Is it simply that Baird, Hardie and Wilson were Scottish and therefore, like many Scottish achievements or sacrifices, irrelevant? Or is the fact that the Scottish martyrs believed in Scottish independence and used a banner that declared, "Scotland Free—or a Desart!" a good enough reason for writing them out of the history books, as the Highland clearances were? Or is it just that the establishment—then and now—has been so shamefaced, embarrassed and guilty about the way those great men were treated that the only way it can cope with the guilt is by trying to make everyone believe that the 1820 insurrection did not happen?
Some 20 years after the executions, a committee was formed to seek the removal of the remains of Hardie and Baird to Sighthill cemetery in Glasgow and to erect a memorial to them. That was done in 1847 and the permission of the then Solicitor General had to be obtained—but permission was granted on condition that there was no publicity. That conspiracy of secrecy continues to this day. It is time it was broken.
I was born 500 yards from Sighthill cemetery and I thought I knew every nook and cranny in Springburn. My father was steeped in the Labour movement, but I knew nothing of Baird, Wilson and Hardie. Had it not been for the good services of the volunteers of the 1820 Society, I doubt that I ever would have known of the 1820 martyrs.
It is surely significant that the 19 Scots who were transported to Australia for their part in the revolt proved that rebellion and criminality are different things. They were pardoned a few years after they were transported.
Wilson, Hardie and Baird were good men, with courage, dignity and character. There is a lesson for all of us who work for a political purpose in the fact that those men of 1820 worked for a political objective and saw in political change the potential for social and economic justice. That is how democrats go about their task.
If people do not know where they came from, they have no chance of knowing where they are going. It is said that only by understanding its history can a people move forward with confidence. If Scotland is to continue to move forward, its full story, which includes the story of the 1820 martyrs, needs to be taught to its children.
A history without Baird, Wilson and Hardie is no history at all.
I thank Gil Paterson for securing this debate. Although the motion's key element is that we should remember the 1820 radical rising and the three individuals who were executed by the British state for their leading role in that rising, it more importantly brings to light our country's hidden history. In 1787, the combined weavers of Glasgow went on strike. The strike was declared illegal by the Government and the town council; seven were shot dead at Glasgow cross and more than 120 were transported to the colonies. That story is not well known, even in the Scottish labour movement.
As an ex-member of Glasgow Trades Council, I must at least thank that organisation, which employed me in 1986-87 to carry out a community arts project that led to the largest May day demonstration that Glasgow had seen. It was apt at the time. That year, we operated under the banner "Muskets to Multinationals—Calton to Caterpillar" because at that time Scottish workers were occupying the Caterpillar factory at Tannochside. We drew a direct parallel between the combination of the Calton weavers in Glasgow in 1787 and the Caterpillar workers who were being driven out of their jobs in 1987. A limited number of badges were struck, most of which were held by members of the trade union movement. That demonstration did not give rise to any history books or changes in the curriculum that made it clear that the original combination of workers in the islands of Great Britain happened in Scotland—and, indeed, in Glasgow.
Other untold elements of our history are the true story of the union, its rejection by the mass of the people in this country and the five to seven years of riot and disturbance that followed. That is not taught in our schools, but it should be. Furthermore, there is the true story of the Highland clearances, which has been mutilated into the story of greedy Highland chiefs driving people off their land. In reality, the clearances were started by the dragoons of Cumberland's army. As has happened many times down the centuries, a British army worked against its own people.
However, it is important that we remember not only Baird, Wilson and Hardie. I ask the Executive to raise a monument in Greenock to the 14 people killed in the town by the British Army when they attempted to rescue those who were to be transported to the colonies after the Bonnymuir battle. Those ordinary people of Greenock rose up against the British Army and freed the prisoners, only to be massacred in their own streets the next day. Fourteen were killed, 70 were wounded and 160 were transported to the colonies for protecting the freedom of the right of workers to combine together under the banner of a free Scotland. Those real issues of our forgotten history have been conveniently forgotten by many.
Now is the time for us to redress the balance and to have the monuments and—more important—a history curriculum that tells the true story of our country so that we can move forward into Europe and the 21st century.
I too thank Gil Paterson for securing this important debate in the Scottish Parliament. As he said, the bodies were removed to and buried in Sighthill cemetery. I grew up on the other side of the wall from Sighthill cemetery, on Springburn Road—up the high road—and never heard of the monuments or the martyrs. Indeed, as a young boy I played all over Sighthill cemetery—perhaps I should not have, but I did—and the working class people in that area at the time had no idea that those workers and heroes were buried so close to them. The fact was brought to my attention only much later.
I was interested in Gil Paterson's reference to the banner "Scotland Free—Or a Desart". I remember seeing it after the 1992 general election—or doomsday number four, or whatever it was called at the time—when the Scotland United group called a rally in George Square and spoke from a top deck of a bus. The banner was out in the crowd.
I referred to the banner in my speech during the rally. It is important that we remember who we are, where we come from and who the real heroes are in Scotland's history. The real heroes in Scottish history are not the kings—French, Norman or whatever—but the ordinary, working-class people who have contributed so much.
One of the few things that I remember being taught in school—in Springburn, of all places—was the history of the period following the Napoleonic wars, between 1815 and 1820. It was a period of terrible Tory reaction. There have been some reactionary Tory Governments in Scotland, but that was one of the worst. It had just abolished income tax—I am sure that some people in the Parliament would like to do that again—which had been used to pay for the Napoleonic wars, and it turned to indirect taxes that impacted on the poor. There was a series of working-class revolts throughout Britain.
I was taught about the Manchester blanketeers and the terrible massacre that took place in St Peter's Field, just outside Manchester when the yeomanry charged the crowd of about 100,000 workers and cut down men, women and children who were peacefully demonstrating for radical reform. The yeomanry nowadays would be called paramilitaries. There was also the Cato Street conspiracy, in which Government agents provocateurs were used to flush out radicals so that they could be executed as Gil Paterson described.
But Scottish kids have never been taught about the Scottish insurrection that occurred during the same period or that in 1820 the workers had demonstrated in the same way. When I became a teacher, I eventually taught history to higher students—although at first I had to teach modern studies, which no one had heard of at that time—and dealt with the British labour movement in the period following 1914. We studied the war and its impact on the British labour movement, but there was no mention of John MacLean, who was perhaps the outstanding figure in the British labour movement at that time and who is never referred to.
The curriculum that has been taught in Scottish schools throughout my lifetime has rarely focused on the marvellous contributions that the Scottish working class made to the history of our country. I have always thought that Tom Johnston's texts "History of the Working Classes in Scotland" and "Our Scots Noble Families" should be mandatory elements of the curriculum in Scottish schools. Tom Johnston was later embarrassed about the content of those books when he became a minister in the Government at Westminster, but they tell more of the truth about what happened at Bannockburn than the established version could.
Gil Paterson has served Scotland well by introducing this debate, which is long overdue. I only wish that I had thought of it.
As well as being a member of the 1820 Society, I am a resident of Strathaven, where James "Perlie" Wilson was from. I am pleased to be able to speak as a member of the Scottish Parliament, as we have now achieved the restoration of an element of our sovereignty due to the efforts and sacrifice of many Scots over the years, of whom James "Perlie" Wilson was one. His compatriots who were killed along with him and those who were deported were others.
As Gil Paterson said, James Wilson was not a young man. He was about 63 at the time of the rising. For many years he had been an unceasing and energetic worker for the radical cause. It is easier to be radical when young. For James Wilson, who had suffered many disappointments and who had reached that age, still to be fighting against adversity for the rights of his fellow Scots was wonderful. Following the infiltration of the organisation by Government forces, the radical rising of 1820 was fairly short-lived and the consequences for those who were involved were dire. Nevertheless, the success of the rising can be judged by the fact that it continues to inspire succeeding generations and is remembered nearly two centuries later, despite the fact that its story has never been taught as part of the school history curriculum.
It is arguable that the Scottish Parliament is a step forward, but it is only one step in the long process in which James "Perlie" Wilson and his compatriots played a part. We should honour men and women who have made such an important contribution to the life of Scotland.
We must remain alive to the struggle that continues around us. That struggle might have changed its character over the years, but fundamentally it is the same as the cause for which Wilson, Hardie and Baird made the ultimate sacrifice. The rising encouraged Scots to pursue their liberty—as individuals and as a nation.
Other members have spoken about education. Like Gil Paterson, I was taught about the Tolpuddle martyrs. I am a bit younger than Gil Paterson, so what we were taught did not change much. I was also taught about the French and Russian revolutions. Why was I never taught about a radical uprising in my own country?
The teachers did not know about it.
Margaret Ewing is right—they did not know about it. We did not know about it and we should be ashamed.
We must avoid complacency and self-satisfaction when we consider that times have changed. It is true that things are easier than they were in 1820, but the social conditions and the freedom that many of us enjoy were brought about by the struggle of those earlier generations. We must continue to safeguard our position by remembering that.
The rising of 1820 should not be a far-off event of which our young people know nothing. We should make it more widely known and we should teach its significance for the cause of social progress and for the cause of Scottish self-determination. In the tradition of Hugh McDiarmid, debates such as this and the teaching of our history to future generations should not be based on tradition alone, but on a willingness to acknowledge and to learn from historical precedent.
In James Wilson, we should recognise a commitment to social progress and to the restoration of Scotland's ability to make a unique contribution to international affairs. It is only through concrete achievements that we will honour most effectively the sacrifice made by James Wilson, John Baird and Andrew Hardie. As a parliamentarian in our new Parliament, I hope that the Parliament will live up to the sacrifices made in its name over the years from 1820 to the present.
Understandably, colleagues have treated the motion with solemnity. It might come as no surprise that I cannot do the motion the same service. I regard it as a partisan issue, for all that it is a member's motion. That might disappoint members, but it is clear that people have different interpretations of history. Although I respect Gil Paterson's position and his right to lodge his motion, I trust that he respects that I might have a different view and interpretation.
Members talk about strikes and executions that took place in Scotland, but members cannot deny that they took place throughout Britain.
Will the member give way?
No, I believe that I am the only member who will make the following point, so I will grant myself a fair wind. Members cannot deny that, eventually, it was the social reform of the Conservative party rather than revolution that enshrined the rights of trade union members.
It is by the often bitter experience of a turbulent history that Scots have learned that the surest road to social progress lies through reform and not through revolution. If the attempt at revolution in 1820 had progressed any further—and it hardly got anywhere at all—it would have brought misfortunes that far outweighed any conceivable benefits. Revolution could have brought the occupation of lowland Scotland by the British army, which included many Scottish regiments as components of that army, just as there were many Scots who fought on different sides at Culloden. It would have gained Scots the reputation of being rebellious and violent people, which was the reputation that the Irish had at that time. It would have stopped Scots from becoming full partners in the union as the Irish never did.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not give way.
Following revolution, Scotland could never have become an industrial power; it would have remained a primitive backwater. The prospects offered to Scotland by those revolutionaries of 1820 were, in every respect, worse than the history that Scotland has experienced. That, of course, is the difficulty of teaching Scottish history in schools. That is why they were defeated—
Will the member give way?
No. I am sure that Tommy Sheridan will speak later.
The revolutionaries were not defeated by any external power, as some might have it, but by the Scottish people. That is what sticks in the craw of many. When the revolutionaries set out from Strathaven to march towards Falkirk to take the Carron ironworks, they expected to spark off a popular rising. They thought that townsmen and villagers would join them from every town and village that they passed through. They expected that, by the time they got to Falkirk, an enormous army of the people would have assembled to overawe any military unit sent against them.
What happened? Few people, if any, joined them. Places they passed through were silent or hostile. When they got to their destination, there were fewer of them than when they started. The so-called battle of Bonnymuir consisted of their being rounded up by the soldiers who met them. The executions of the revolutionaries are indeed unpalatable but are part of the context of the time in which they lived. While their executions were unjust—and it is worth remembering that they died for their cause and respecting them for that—that is not to say that their cause cannot be challenged.
It is worth asking ourselves the reasons for this utter failure, not just at Bonnymuir but in Glasgow and other places where insurrection was attempted or rumoured. As Tommy Sheridan will no doubt admit, it is difficult to have a revolution without the people being behind it. Scots wanted not upheaval, violence and civil disobedience, of which they had seen enough in their history; they wanted peaceful constitutional advance, which is what their status as citizens of the United Kingdom offered them.
Many pamphlets and posters of that period spoke of British freedom and implied that the Scots did not share enough in it. The reformers offered the remedy of the pursuit of progress by constitutional means. In 1832, 12 years after Bonnymuir, the first Reform Act was passed and the political life of modern Scotland was created. Scots won freedom by dint of their being part of Britain. They still possess and value that freedom, and I believe that they will value it for a long time to come. They chose Walter Scott, not the martyrs of Bonnymuir. That is why, if we were to have a vote, I would urge members to reject this motion.
I favour the teaching of Scottish history. I have lodged motions in the Scottish Parliament calling for the teaching of Scottish history. However, we would be wise to teach the lessons that the nation has learned from that history rather than glorifying men who betrayed it.
The fact that Brian Monteith did not mention fear, persecution and the use of the military and of agents provocateurs demonstrates the fact that he has an unbelievable perspective on these issues. I am glad that he is not in charge of the curriculum and that, based on his performance today, he never will be.
Other people addressed some of the issues that Brian Monteith raised, so I will address the local impact of the Strathaven radicals. In local schools, particularly the Strathaven primary schools, one of which my daughter attends, a lot of good work is done on local issues, including the Strathaven radicals. Such work recognises the struggle of the working classes at that time and points out to local people the effect that the Strathaven radicals had on Scottish society.
Perhaps 15 or 20 years ago, I attended my first 1820 Society march. At the last march I attended, I had to run away from the Strathaven gala day, dressed as a bin man, to change quickly into a shirt and tie so that I could speak at one of the 1820 Society's events. I appreciated the invitation to do so.
In Strathaven, at the site of James Purlie Wilson's house, people can see a commemoration of him and they can see his grave in the graveyard. The issue is not completely ignored locally and I encourage those who are interested in the issue but who may not have been to Strathaven to go there. They will find leaflets in the tourist information office and the shops and will be able to buy publications by local writers on the Strathaven martyrs and on Baird and Wilson.
Although a lot of good information is available, there is more that can be done. I am interested in what the minister says about the curriculum and the education of our young people. The issue is not forgotten history: it exists and can be seen in Strathaven. I encourage people to visit Strathaven, a place in which I live and which I have the privilege of representing as a constituency MSP.
I congratulate Gil Paterson on bringing to light a little bit of Scotland's hidden history. The congratulations are personal because he has brought to light a little of my family's hidden history. There was always a legend that somebody in my family had been hung for sheep stealing. The initial investigations led me to my great-great-grandfather John Stevenson, a mining serf who was killed in a mining accident in Fallin in 1833. No, that was not the family's hidden secret. The secret was that John Baird's sister was one of my ancestors. So, for me, the motion has a personal resonance.
Since learning the secret, I have of course read all the books and I am particularly struck—in the light of Brian Monteith's contribution—by the parallels with today. As the marchers went to Bonnymuir, Government spies were working against them in their midst. I see Brian Monteith in that role today, but today we will not let him achieve the objectives that the spies achieved in August and September 1820, when the three martyrs were despatched to meet their maker.
A little bit of contemporary evidence is still available. I say to John McAllion that I do not think that the banner is still around, but the axe that dispatched Hardie and Baird is in the museum in Stirling.
It is worth reflecting on what being hung, drawn and quartered meant. It meant that those who were to be thus dispatched were put on the gallows and gently lowered down until they lost consciousness, but before they died, they were cut down and restored to consciousness. The axe was then run from sternum to scrotum and from left to right. The bowels were then drawn while the person was still alive from within the abdominal cavity.
The agonies that our martyrs were put through are unimaginable to today's generation. I thank Gil Paterson for bringing that to our attention. I feel the emotion conveyed down the centuries from my ancestor.
The minister—who will be assailed, as he has been in the past, for lowering educational standards—may take comfort in the fact that, on the banner that said "Scotland Free—Or a Desart", they did not spell "desert" correctly. Things were not always perfect in the past either.
It is depressing to study the issue if you are a radical in politics, as I consider myself to be. The radicals almost always fouled up, and in 1820 they fouled up. There was meant to be a splendid revolution in the north of England, on which the Scots would build, but the chaps in the north of England failed to perform. What started as a successful strike in Scotland dwindled into a few people, rather than a large mass, carrying on with a rebellion. However, it did have an effect and it helped the subsequent Chartists.
On Brian Monteith's point, the subject should be taught. There are different strands in our politics: the radicals—the various efforts by the working classes to improve their lot and get the vote and so on—as opposed to the more orderly reforms around 1832. One can understand Brian Monteith celebrating the first Reform Act, which the Tories fought against tooth and nail: they fight against proportional representation in politics, which is the only reason that he is sitting in the chamber. The Tories are quite used to lauding things that they opposed.
The fundamental point is that most Scots know nothing about their history. They have heard vaguely of Mel Gibson. We should learn and teach much more about Scottish history. We have a lot to be proud of in the contributions of working-class movements and do-gooders of different sorts, in our contribution to Europe over many years and in our constructive contribution to the Empire and the Commonwealth and to other countries through emigration. Scots should know a lot more about their own history and about how we fit in to the world. The failed revolution that we are discussing is one example of that. It is good that the subject has been raised; we should encourage schools to teach it in the wider context of people really understanding Scotland.
I wish to pay tribute to the 1820 Society, which has struggled for many years to bring this subject to the fore. Had it not been for a dedicated band of supporters, I think that the subject would have been dead, gone, buried and forgotten a long time ago. I am delighted to see that there are at least some representatives of the society in the public gallery. I have had a minor involvement, as a supporter, over a number of years, and I pay particular tribute to Councillor Jim Mitchell, who, through clever publicity stunts, managed to raise awareness of the issue and persuaded some authorities to identify the sites of graves and to commemorate the martyrs. In fact, he embarrassed the authorities into doing so.
The approach adopted by Mr Monteith is a most unusual one. Having gone along with the idea that the subject would never ever be talked about—almost on the basis that the victors write the history; in this case, they have written the subject out of history—but having failed to suppress it totally, those sharing that approach then say, "Well, of course, that's not really the story," and then proceed to tell their version. Their attitude seems to be that, if they cannot eliminate it from history, they will write their own version, which will place the events of 1820 in the worst possible light. I find that very disappointing.
Such events as the 1820 rising ought to be taught as part and parcel of our history. If we have to have different views of it, that is fair enough, but, in the view that they have portrayed of it, those who have written its history—supported by the 1820 Society—have the right of it. Similarly, John McAllion was correct about John MacLean also being substantially written out of history.
There is a proud history in Scotland of those who have fought for social and political issues, yet they have been edited out of history. Gil Paterson's success in bringing this subject on to the floor of the Parliament is very much to be welcomed. I commend the activities of the 1820 Society in helping to keep that history alive and well, so that we can bring it to the fore today.
I add my thanks to Gil Paterson for securing this important debate. As part of my background reading—my thanks go to the 1820 Society—I read an article from which I must quote. It is by Ian Bayne, the secretary of the society. He says:
"One of his ‘comrades' on the march to Cathkin carried a flag with the still evocative inscription: ‘Scotland Free – Or a Desart' (sic) though admittedly, this can also be construed as a ‘liberal-democratic' as well as – or instead of – a ‘nationalist' slogan."
There are various views on that slogan and we have heard various views in this debate on the whole issue of the 1820 radical protests.
I wonder whether the minister is aware that Mitchell of the Glasgow police wrote, when referring to entrapment methods, that the people who were meeting were conspiring for Scottish independence. The police in Glasgow wrote that down.
I was not aware of that but I am learning about the issue all the time. Whether one draws from the nationalist, the Liberal Democrat, the socialist or the Conservative tradition, we can all agree that the Government's reaction to the events was predictably brutal. Eighty-eight treason trials resulted in the three executions, which have been referred to, and 19 transportations to Australia. In comparison, England's pioneering trade union martyrs, the Tolpuddle martyrs of the 1830s, achieved far greater fame but got off lightly. By then, of course, the Whigs were back in power.
As has been mentioned, the 1820 radicals were given free pardons in 1835. That hints that even at that time the establishment was clearly embarrassed and, I hope, shamed by what was done in 1820.
Wilson, Baird and Hardie made an important contribution to the promotion of social reform in Scotland. One of the documents that was distributed among the 1820 radical protestors declared that
"equality of rights … is the object for which we contend and which we consider as the only security for our liberties and our lives".
In 1820, their liberty and their lives were held too cheap and those men should not have died.
Gil Paterson's motion advocates that the history of the radical protest should be included in the school curriculum. It is said that history is written by the winners, but there were no winners, only shame. However, the opportunity to study the topic already exists. As Andy Kerr mentioned, the Bonnymuir rising, which involved Baird and Hardie, is studied in some schools and is designated as a topic in the standard grade history course "Changing Life in Scotland and Britain 1750s-1850s". That sounds like a topic for "Mastermind", but the 1820 rising is already a part of that course.
Does Nicol Stephen accept that one of the reasons why some—and I stress some—of those issues are now included in the school curriculum is the work that many people in Scotland have undertaken to ensure the availability of textbooks for our children to study? When I taught the same period of history and social revolution, I could find many books about the Peterloo massacre but damn few about 1820.
I agree that the production of more materials, not only textbooks, is important. That will happen over the coming years.
There is an opportunity to study the 1820 martyrs in history courses and in environmental studies courses in the five to 14 curriculum. It would be appropriate for the subject to be taught in all or any of those areas. I must stress that it would be appropriate only if the education authorities and the schools so wish. As members know, the Executive's policy is directed at ensuring that education authorities and schools have flexibility to deliver a school curriculum that will meet the needs and wishes of all pupils.
The national priorities for education set the key outcomes that should result from a high-quality education system. At the risk of being controversial—especially in the mind of Brian Monteith—I suggest that the national priorities already embody the values of the radical protestors that I quoted earlier. For example, the national priorities set out a commitment
"to promote equality and help every pupil benefit from education"
and
"to work with parents to teach pupils respect for self and one another and their interdependence with other members of their neighbourhood and society and to teach them the duties and responsibilities of citizenship in a democratic society".
The Executive wants education authorities and schools to be more innovative and to be flexible in the methods that they use to deliver those key outcomes. That is why we issued a circular to education authorities and schools that emphasised the opportunities for flexibility. I firmly believe that that approach will be the most effective in ensuring that all Scotland's schoolchildren receive an education that will enable them to understand their place in history and to meet their full potential as individuals and as citizens.
The more flexible approach that the Executive is now taking will provide schools with a greater opportunity to study a wide range of topics in Scottish history. In my view, too many of those topics are currently ignored. As Donald Gorrie pointed out, that breeds ignorance of many important Scottish issues.
As I said, schools can if they wish study the radical protests of 1820 at standard grade and as part of the five to 14 curriculum. The Scottish Executive has also funded a range of learning and teaching support materials to assist schools in studying Scottish history. They range from publications such as the "Scottish History Resource Guide for Primary and Secondary Schools" to a series of CD-ROMs on the Scottish people. One covers the period 1450 to 1850, while another covers the period 1840 to 1940. I agree with Margaret Ewing that we need to do more, and we intend to do more.
Members will agree that there are many opportunities for increased study of Scottish history in our schools. In an education debate, however, promoting or prescribing one area of study as the motion seeks to do would raise the wrath of Russell—Mike Russell would tell us that that was inappropriate, and I would agree with him. On that note of consensus, I conclude.
That concludes this debate in memory of James Wilson, John Baird and Andrew Hardie.
Meeting closed at 17:46.