Scottish Studies
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-00959, in the name of Alasdair Allan, on Scottish studies.
14:54
In opening the debate for the Government I will admit a rare thing in politics, which is that I care fairly deeply about whether the Parliament intends to accept the premise that I put forward today. It would be fairly uncontentious anywhere else on earth, and it is this: that it is reasonable for anyone in any country to expect that school will give them access to and knowledge of their country’s culture.
I believe that premise—and I declare an interest, which my register of interests will show—as someone who is involved in various cultural organisations. I also believe it as someone who, for all the many good things about my experience of school, somehow managed to grow up in the same place as did both Sir Walter Scott and James Hogg without hearing either of their names mentioned in secondary school.
The Government’s commitment to Scottish studies in schools has sparked some intemperate language in the political arena. [Interruption.] I hear some from parts of the chamber already. Things have been said about this that I earnestly hope some politicians are suitably embarrassed about now. I note that the words “indoctrination” and “brainwashing”, for instance, are absent from the Opposition amendments—that much at least is to be welcomed.
Be in no doubt: the public has warmly welcomed the commitment to Scottish studies, with recent research showing a 90 per cent level of support. That is because the vast majority of people recognise that learning about Scotland’s history, languages, literature and culture should be an integral and natural part of a young person’s experiences. So we will strengthen the place of Scotland in learning through the curriculum, ensuring that all and not just some children and young people can access a distinct strand of learning about Scotland and Scottish culture.
Young people have an entitlement to a broad general education as part of curriculum for excellence. That must include enabling them to develop a knowledge and understanding of Scotland and its place in the world. Understanding Scottish culture and connecting with Scotland as a place through our landscape and natural heritage are an important part of developing a sense of worth, confidence and wellbeing—all the things that enable people to flourish in learning, life and work.
During the debate on the Scottish Government’s legislative programme on 8 September, Johann Lamont highlighted her experience from school as evidence that we need take no further action on Scottish studies. If Ms Lamont’s experience of the classroom, both as a pupil and as a teacher, was one where Scottish history and literature were taught, I warmly commend that. I do not doubt that over the years some young people have benefitted from first-class learning about Scotland, including Scottish literature, history and poetry. However—believe me—that simply is not the experience of everyone. The real point, which the Opposition amendments regrettably seem unwilling to accept, is that we have a duty to ensure that learning about Scotland and its culture is not a fortunate accident for some, but an expectation for all.
As to other objections that Ms Lamont raised in her remarkable contribution on 8 September, most notable was the claim that the Scottish National Party is hell-bent on trying to tell children that no bad landlord has ever been Scottish or that we want to write women out of Scottish history—I hardly know where to begin on that. Let me instead leave rebuttal to Dr Wilson McLeod, a senior lecturer in Celtic and Scottish studies, who said recently about Scottish studies:
“Far from giving a biased and nationalistic view of Scotland’s past, it could also pierce ‘romantic history’ about the likes of Culloden and the Clearances”.
During the 2009 year of homecoming, we saw some wonderful examples of pupils learning about their country and its contribution to the world, including the winner of the homecoming Scottish education award: Iochdar primary school in my constituency. I hasten to add that it got that award before I became the Minister for Learning and Skills. At the end of it, young people in schools that had entered the competition for the homecoming award were asking why they could not have the opportunity to learn about Scotland every year. Well, we intend to ensure that such opportunities become embedded across the curriculum.
There is a strong sense of necessity here. Coherence, relevance, progression and depth are key principles in the new curriculum, and providing greater structure to learn about Scotland will be enabled by Scottish studies. We know from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education reports that since 2007 schools have been developing approaches to planning the Scottish dimension in history that are more coherent. We consider it vital that that continues to be developed, not only in terms of history but across the curriculum. Proposals will therefore be developed and implemented in a way that strengthens curriculum for excellence, providing a more relevant and connected learning experience that raises ambition and attainment for all.
Earlier this month, I chaired the first meeting of the Scottish studies working group. The group has an excellent blend of experience and insight from the fields of academia, the Scots and Gaelic languages, literature, culture and, most important, teaching. We are privileged to have the Scots makar, Liz Lochhead, join the group, as well as the musician Phil Cunningham and Scottish literary authority Professor Douglas Gifford. There is a strong appreciation within the group of the value of ensuring that pupils can access learning about Scotland while avoiding any risk of marginalising Scottish subjects.
In taking this work forward, it is important to appreciate that we are not starting with a blank canvas. The place of Scotland in learning has been significantly strengthened through curriculum for excellence. There are many opportunities to develop relevant and engaging learning about Scotland and Scottish culture in curricular areas including social studies, through Scottish history, geography and modern studies; expressive arts; languages; and health and wellbeing.
Outdoor learning also provides an exciting opportunity to engage and inspire young people in a wide range of environments. This is not, as some commentators seem to have imagined, all about history.
Schools such as Carleton primary in Glenrothes are leading the way. Scottish culture at Carleton is organised thematically with each primary following a programme. I was also impressed by the cross-curricular approach being taken in Dunfermline high, which I visited earlier this month.
Let me stress one other thing: it is vital that Scottish studies underpins an international perspective as young people develop as responsible global citizens with the skills, knowledge, understanding and values to succeed in a fast-changing world.
The place of learning about Scottish history has been greatly strengthened in recent years through online resources and the introduction of the mandatory Scottish history unit in higher history.
During the last academic year, more than 20,000 young people throughout Scotland benefited from the heritage education travel subsidy scheme, which has opened up access to heritage education at sites including the new Robert Burns birthplace museum, New Lanark world heritage site, Bannockburn and Edinburgh and Stirling castles. I am looking to see whether Murdo Fraser is in the chamber. He objected to the scheme at the time. It gives me great pleasure to announce that the Scottish Government will continue its support for the heritage education travel subsidy scheme for 2012-13. Clearly, it is appreciated by teachers and young people alike.
Among many other aspects of Scotland’s culture, Gaelic is a vital part of what we are trying to do. Gaelic is one of our national languages and we have a collective responsibility to ensure that it flourishes. The recent survey of public attitudes to Gaelic made clear the overwhelming support for Scottish studies and showed that 81 per cent of the Scottish public feel that it is important that Scotland does not lose its Gaelic language traditions.
We should also recognise and value the place of Scots literature and language in Scottish culture and ensure that it has a firm place in learning. Practical steps include working with local authorities, national bodies and groups such as the Scots Language Centre, Scottish Language Dictionaries and the Robert Burns museum to support progress.
We will also look at how we can take forward the recommendations of the Scots language working group and are planning to establish a network of Scots co-ordinators in schools.
Clearly, the scope and range of Scottish studies is enormous throughout the journey through primary and secondary school. We therefore also expect there to be opportunities for learners to continue their studies within a Scottish context in the senior phase. That will include recognition of such learning within qualifications that incentivise progression and attainment.
There is a significant number of national courses that have opportunities and aspects that can be studied and assessed within a Scottish context. Those opportunities will be strengthened within the new curriculum for excellence national qualifications, which will be implemented from 2013-14.
We are also exploring the potential for a specific qualification in Scottish studies. Let me be clear—this is something that has caused much slightly ill-informed debate in the press—that the working party is keen to investigate a range of models. A qualification could, for instance, include recognising the study that young people undertake on Scottish themes across a range of subject areas and at different levels, but, as yet, the group has reached no conclusions.
All young people deserve the opportunity to learn about their country, and nowhere else but here would that be questioned. Those who still do might perhaps wish to consider taking a deep breath and turning away from their own constitutional obsessions for one moment. [Interruption.] Those people obviously recognise the problem that they have. They would see that Scottish studies is healthy, normal and supported by people across the political spectrum and across the world of education—it is also supported by parents.
There are good examples of embedding Scottish subjects into the curriculum in schools, but that is not being done everywhere across the country and we want all—not just some—young people to have a clearer understanding of Scotland and the world.
One of the wisest comments made in the press following some of the more hysterical political reactions to my initial announcement about Scottish studies came from a Mr Hugh Reilly. In his article in The Scotsman, Mr Reilly said that, for whatever it was worth, he viewed himself as a traditional Labour voter. He also said:
“I’m speculating here, but Scotland must be the only country in the world where teaching children the history of their own nation is perceived to be treason. The idea that introducing Scottish Studies to the national curriculum is brainwashing our children is farcical beyond belief.”
Indeed.
Let us start being serious about the issue. Let today’s debate be the start of a positive recognition by the Parliament as a whole that every young Scot has a right to learn about their country and, through that knowledge, to learn about the many other peoples of the world. Believe me: there is a world out there that regards all this stuff as pretty normal and, in Scotland’s case, long overdue.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the 90% level of support for Scottish Studies in a recent survey; agrees that it is essential that all young people should have the opportunity to learn and be better informed about their country and its place in the world, including its historical, literary, linguistic and cultural inheritance as well as its landscape and natural heritage, and that such learning provides a more relevant and connected learning experience that raises ambition and attainment for all, and supports the Scottish Government’s desire to develop a distinct strand of learning around Scottish Studies for all pupils in the context of the Curriculum for Excellence, providing greater coherence without marginalisation.
We have some time in hand for the debate. I call Claire Baker to speak to and move amendment S4M-00959.2. Ms Baker, you have a generous nine minutes, and I can give some time for interventions if you wish to take them.
15:06
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I welcome the opportunity to open this afternoon’s debate for Labour. There has been much commentary on proposals for Scottish studies, but today’s debate gives us the opportunity to explore the proposals, deconstruct some of the myths, and critically question and interrogate the reality and perceived reality—all analytical skills that we would expect students to develop when entering the world of Scottish studies.
Dr Alasdair Alison—sorry, I will start again. Dr Allan—sorry! [Laughter.] Dr Alasdair Allan—my apologies—is rightly proud of his academic title, but it is less well known that I too have a doctorate.
Members: Oh!
Thank you. It is in English literature, more specifically Sylvia Plath. Although the field is known as English literature, I came to it through the study of American literature in my undergraduate degree and doctorate and, although it was a long time ago now, through Scottish literature in my higher English, for which I studied “Sunset Song” and “The Cone-Gatherers”. I also taught “Caleb Williams” and “The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner” to undergraduates at the University of Glasgow, alongside the poetry of the very English Stevie Smith and the very American Walt Whitman.
We should all start by recognising the depth of the understanding and integration of Scottish studies across academia—in this case in English literature, but I believe it is common across other disciplines. It is important that, in any decision to move towards a new subject in the school curriculum, we do not marginalise Scottish studies, but recognise that there is great value in embedding Scottish literature or history, or any other discipline, in a broader context.
There is little to disagree with in the Government motion, although there are perhaps some questions to ask about how much we can conclude from a survey that was based on the Gaelic language. However, there are many questions to be answered before we can fully subscribe to the Government’s desire.
At this stage, we have little detail about the Government’s intentions for the proposed addition to the curriculum, which is why our amendment draws attention to the considerations of the working group and highlights some of the challenges that it has to address. So far, the working group has been set up with the remit to discuss the implementation of the SNP’s manifesto commitment to create a distinct strand of learning in primary and secondary schools, but I suspect that we are currently some way off the creation or delivery of a new subject as an addition to the curriculum.
It is important that the working group brings transparency and rational thinking to the debate. There are many strands in the current curriculum that provide an opportunity for engagement with Scottish studies—as the minister acknowledged—and we have advantages in the current curriculum from the fact that it enables teachers to play to their strengths, which benefits pupils.
It is important that the working group recognises the excellent work that is already undertaken in our schools. We have perhaps all made unfortunate comments in the lead-up to this debate, but it is unfortunate that Alasdair Allan made the claim that teachers fail to offer basic information about their own country, thus forcing the Government’s hand.
I thank the member for giving way and I welcome the tone of everything that she has said, at least up until that point. She clearly welcomes the idea of literature being an international phenomenon and agrees that people should be exposed to all sorts of literature from around the world. Does she not also acknowledge that not all children and young people in Scotland have the opportunity to study Scottish literature? The experience is not universal.
That is an important point, which the working group needs to look at. As I will go on to explain, many of us have experience—personal experience or experience in our constituencies—of a good level of engagement with Scottish literature and culture in schools. We will wait to see whether the working group identifies any gaps. Any MSP who engages with the Parliament’s education service will know that primary and secondary schools throughout Scotland are engaging with our modern history and democracy, so I do not feel that the minister’s speech reflected the reality in our classrooms, but that is an area that the working group needs to investigate.
I am sure that the working group will be delighted to engage with schools that are already celebrating Scots poetry, marking important dates in the school calendar, exploring Scottish culture, discussing the huge influence that entrepreneurial Scots have had on trade and industry, discovering Scotland’s incredible changing landscape and, in history classes, exploring the complex and turbulent history of our great country. The Government has shown commitment to the broad teaching ethos of the curriculum for excellence, and in developing those proposals the working group must adhere to that ethos. The curriculum for excellence provides more opportunities for schools to be engaged in their local communities and brings subjects to life with experiences that are relevant to pupils. Scottish studies have a valuable role to play in that.
The working group may find that Scotland is a thread that runs through the entire curriculum, but one that is rightly balanced with an international and a local perspective. There is a danger that the working group could be too prescriptive. The curriculum for excellence is all about having a flexible curriculum that puts teachers’ professionalism at the heart of its delivery. It is important that the working group reflects on that. If there are gaps in the curriculum, it must produce evidence of that and proposals for enriching the curriculum.
Complementary to the embedding of Scottish studies throughout the curriculum—although, as I have suggested, that is already the case—there is the matter of the creation of a new subject, which would include qualification development. As a graduate who approached the poetry of Sylvia Plath through an understanding of cultural materialism, I recognise the value of cross-disciplinary understanding in a subject. At university level, American studies is well established and Scottish studies is increasingly being offered, although cuts and lack of research investment threaten the viability of some of those courses and there are clear boundaries in the discipline. If the working group is to propose a model for Scottish studies, it needs to be clear about the relevance and interconnectedness of areas of study. Some of the Government’s comments about Scottish cookery and horticulture raise issues about the need to have a rigorous Scottish studies subject that could lead to a qualification. Proper guidelines need to be developed on what is appropriate, and that will be an important area of work for the group.
Our amendment also calls for an assessment of the skills and knowledge of the teaching profession, especially if a new qualification is to be introduced. There will have to be discussion of schools’ ability to deliver the qualification. There are already concerns over provision in modern languages and history, for example; therefore, the question must be asked whether there is capacity in the sector to deliver in this new area if there is to be a distinct subject. Any addition to the curriculum would need to be supported with good resources and continuing professional development opportunities—areas that are under pressure at the moment because of budget constraints.
The working group will have to determine whether there is an appetite for the course. One question in a Gaelic survey is not conclusive. How will the college and university sector respond to any new qualifications? Is it development of an area that employers would value? The working group will also have to consider whether any additions to an already busy curriculum would marginalise other subjects that we can ill afford to sideline. We already know the areas that could make a real difference to young people’s employability—for example, modern languages—in which Scotland is particularly poor. We must ask whether, if additional resources are to be allocated or additional time is to be created within the curriculum—it is difficult to see how the proposals could be advanced without those—we are confident that this is the best area to develop to give young people the most advantages.
The proposal is now in a transitional period. If it is to succeed, it needs to move from being an attractive, even emotive, hearts-and-minds policy in a party-political manifesto to a fully developed and robust addition to the curriculum that will add value to the school experience and bring advantage to our young people.
I move amendment S4M-00959.2, to leave out from “welcomes” to end and insert:
“notes the establishment of the Scottish Studies working group and its exploration of Scottish studies as a new subject; acknowledges the excellent practice that is already in place in Scottish schools which is delivering a wide range of Scottish-focused teaching across the curriculum; calls on the working group to audit current practice in primary and secondary schools, including the skills and knowledge of teachers in this area and to determine the way in which a new subject will add to the work that is already being undertaken and to guard against marginalisation of Scottish studies, and looks forward to scrutinising the working group’s recommendations.”
15:14
I hope that I am qualified to participate in the debate, even though I do not have a doctorate. I thank the Scottish Government for at least giving us a little more in the way of detail this afternoon.
When the Scottish Government launched the initiative, those of us who are education spokesmen were contacted by journalists and asked what we made of it. I said that I had to confess that I was a little confused about what the proposal was. I went back and looked at the Scottish National Party manifesto and I still remain a little confused, even though the Scottish Government has given us a few more details this afternoon, because I am not entirely convinced of the logic.
The manifesto states that the SNP wants to
“develop the concept of Scottish Studies”,
which would create,
“a distinct strand of learning focused on Scotland and incorporating Scottish History, Scottish Literature, the Scots and Gaelic Languages, wider Scottish culture and Scottish current affairs.”
The SNP manifesto goes on to say that
“All pupils will have access to this strand at Primary and Secondary levels.”
I am confused for two reasons. First, I thought that it was plain to most observers that Scottish studies, in their widest sense, were already embedded in the Scottish curriculum and that they will be enhanced in all schools by the curriculum for excellence. I thought that maybe I had got this wrong, so I went off and did quite a lot of research to check whether I had made a mistake.
I found a Times Educational Supplement Scotland article from 2008 about developments for the curriculum for excellence, in which there was a very full run down from teachers in schools all across Scotland—in English, mathematics, home economics, history, biology, physics, chemistry and French—who had all explained, in considerable detail, exactly how Scottish themes were present in their subjects. I also found a sizeable Learning and Teaching Scotland document—all 317 pages of it—in which there is a very precise and detailed description of exactly how Scottish studies are embedded in the curriculum. It lists at length how Scottish themes are a core part of pupils’ learning. I will quote some of them.
On classical languages, the document states:
“By studying a classical language, young people will become ever more aware of how vital parts of Scotland’s culture, the arts, law, political systems and social values are both directly and indirectly linked with the classical world.”
On religious education, it states:
“The experiences and outcomes draw on the rich and diverse context of Scotland’s cultural heritage through the use of Scottish stories, images, music and poems.”
On modern languages, it states:
“children and young people can gain access to the literary heritage of humanity and develop their appreciation of the richness and breadth of Scotland’s literary heritage.”
That left me with an important question: what else does the SNP think it is necessary to teach children about Scotland? Why has what started out as a concept been transmuted into a strand and then into a subject? What on earth is it that the current curriculum does not have that would make a new case for Scottish studies?
Does the member agree that one thing that would make a difference—it is certainly a theme that is beginning to emerge from the working group—is for teachers to have confidence about Scottish subjects and Scottish subject matter? An emerging theme is that continuous professional development among the teaching profession to be able to cope with those subjects would be welcome. Does she welcome that?
Of course I welcome any measures that give teachers more confidence. What I am asking is: why is it that the proposed Scottish studies course gives something extra that is not already in the curriculum? We have hordes of bits of paper that tell us that Scottish studies are already a fundamental part of the Scottish curriculum.
My second reason for being a little confused is related to other curriculum developments. The SNP, of all parties, should know the criticisms that it faces about trying to fit everything else into a crowded curriculum. Who was it that said that they would deliver two hours of quality physical education per week to every pupil? Who persuades us, or at least tries to persuade us, that they are making good progress in this area? Who is it that has received submissions from concerned history teachers about losing discrete time in the social sciences and from language teachers who are concerned that we are not devoting enough time to German, French or Spanish? It is bad enough trying to explain to those teachers why they are being squeezed in the curriculum without a new subject appearing, to add further tensions.
I appreciate that the SNP has decided not to make the subject compulsory—thank goodness for that—but even by being an optional subject, it will have significant implications for the timetable in schools, so the SNP needs to come clean and explain which subjects will be squeezed as a result.
Let us be charitable. If I thought that important aspects of Scottish studies that are essential components of a better education for our pupils were not currently being taught, I might have a little more sympathy with the SNP. However, all the research that I can find seems to offer a wealth of evidence that there is already very considerable and good-quality coverage of Scottish literature, language, politics, culture and history. Indeed, coverage has increased recently, as a result of changes to Scottish Qualifications Authority highers and the introduction of curriculum for excellence.
Therefore, from a logical and an educational perspective, I am struggling to see why the proposed addition to the timetable is necessary and why it will not overlap with existing courses. Is not the proposal also a bit of a kick in the teeth to the people who spent hours devising all the curriculum for excellence materials, only to learn that some of their work might have to be changed?
Perhaps it is not surprising that some people think that there is something a little bit political in the proposal. It is hard not to be cynical, but I will try. I hope that the SNP will be able not only to answer the two questions that I raised, but to dispel any hint that its proposal is more to do with the SNP’s pet themes than with anything else.
Before anyone in the SNP tries their usual tack and says that the Scottish Tories are anti-Scottish, I remind the Parliament and the cabinet secretary that it was the Tories, under Scottish secretaries Malcolm Rifkind and Michael Forsyth, who provided far more money for Gaelic, the £8 million Gaelic television fund and the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985, which financed many projects on Gaelic and Scots. I also remind members that the Tories supported the introduction of a discrete Scottish history paper in higher history. I will take no lessons from—or be indoctrinated by—anyone about the Tories being anti-Scottish.
Of course we support arguments in education that are aimed at ensuring that all pupils understand and appreciate the extraordinary richness of Scotland and its historical, social, cultural and political identity, but I am not persuaded of a need for a new Scottish studies programme. I will not be surprised if that goes for many teachers, too.
I move amendment S4M-00959.1, to leave out from “welcomes” to end and insert:
“agrees that it is essential that all young people should have the opportunity to learn and be better informed about their country and its place in the world, including its historical, literary, linguistic and cultural inheritance as well as its landscape and natural heritage, and that such learning provides a more relevant and connected learning experience that raises ambition and attainment for all, but believes that these educational opportunities are already extensively and successfully embedded in the curriculum without the need for the addition of discrete Scottish Studies.”
15:22
Children in Scotland have a right to be taught about their country. Far too many young people leave school with little knowledge of Scotland’s history, geography, art or music. The introduction of a form of Scottish studies, to develop a stronger sense of national culture and identity, as part of the curriculum for excellence, sounds like a response to that.
Such a view was perhaps supported by Ken Macintosh when he said, during a debate on Scottish history:
“I believe that, by supporting the study of Scottish history, we will give a whole new generation of pupils access to the sort of liberal education that will enable them to look beyond these shores, to challenge the orthodoxy of received opinion, and, I hope, to build a better world.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2008; c 5594.]
The proposal on Scottish studies is an answer to his wish, because a general study of Scottish interests is not narrow and can inform much of the debate that is taking place about Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the world.
As the minister said, we must give teachers as much confidence as possible to teach the local and national story that there is to tell. I have taught history and modern studies, so I know that having the right material and a close knowledge of the local take on a story are important elements in the attempt to engage children in the material.
Like Mr Gibson, I was a modern studies teacher, but I also taught in primary schools until the election. In those schools, I saw a vast range of subjects and cross-curricular topics being taught that were linked very much to our culture and communities, whether the subject was art, religious education, information and communications technology or whatever. Does the member agree that it would be wiser to examine what is already going on in schools rather than lumping something else into an already rammed curriculum? I say that as someone who took Scottish studies as part of his degree.
In the past, nobody questioned the higher history module on the history of the Labour Party. That was not seen as brainwashing or an extra addition to the curriculum; it was seen as a natural part of the curriculum. However, many of the aspects of Scottish studies that we are talking about are not a natural part of the studies of children across this country.
Can the member give us an example?
I can give him plenty of examples from where I have taught. The circumstances are such that we have to consider the attitudes behind this matter.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
During the debates in 2010 about the questions in the census, there was a concern that a question about the Scots language, introduced for the first time, would be confusing. When the convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Iain Smith, expressed that view, the minister who was responsible at the time, before the final order was passed, suggested that the demand for the variety of information in Scotland was much more complex than the simpler question that was asked in the census in England and Wales.
That plays very much into my experience, which is that teachers in many parts of Scotland do not value some of the aspects of their local history, which they could be spending more time on and making more of. For example, the report of the ministerial working group on the Scots language says:
“All regional and social dialects of Scots should be recognised as worthy of respect. Central initiatives to support Scots must therefore be designed to take account of how they will operate in strong dialect areas.”
That suggests a national framework and a recognition that people must teach in the context of particular dialects. The point is that we have various dialects and, when people in Caithness, who speak a strong dialect, were asked the question about Scots, they had to be reminded that the Caithness dialect is a dialect of Scots.
The first answers in the census might not be up to what we want them to be but the fact is that if, in Scottish studies, there was teaching that related to that particular matter, children would understand a good deal better what is going on in their area and how it relates to other matters.
I totally accept some of the points that the member is making but would he agree that it is the point of the curriculum for excellence to concentrate on many of the local circumstances and the environment from which learners come?
I think that that will be strengthened by the proposals that we are discussing.
The question of esteem is also important in relation to the issue of traditional music. Having saved the national centre of excellence in traditional music at Plockton, and expanded its activities, we can recognise how, at that end of the story, a lot of people can benefit from it. However, far more people will benefit from the fact that they have an opportunity to learn in the schools. That is why the traditional arts working group recommends
“that the traditional arts sector develop courses, classes and other means of increasing popular appreciation of the traditional arts among non-artist/practitioners, and that these are appropriately supported”.
That fits well into the idea of Scottish studies. That is why I believe that we must find ways of ensuring that the Scottish studies that we are discussing are all-embracing, relevant to the local area and address the issue that there are a lot of people who left school without a wide knowledge of their circumstances.
I am all for Scottish studies in our schools. The course, in keeping with the curriculum for excellence, can be tailored to meet the local conditions of every part of our multicultural and proudly mongrel nation.
15:29
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Both my parents are teachers—my dad is an English teacher and my mum is a modern languages teacher—so throughout my childhood I was always taught the importance of learning, which gave me a great passion for reading. That experience also taught me that the job of schools, as well as teaching core subjects, is to teach people how to learn, and to want to learn, throughout their lives.
That principle is at the heart of the curriculum for excellence, which
“aims to develop four capacities, helping children to become ... Successful learners ... Confident individuals ... Responsible citizens ... Effective contributors”.
That is absolutely right.
The curriculum also emphasises the importance of interdisciplinary learning, which sits somewhat against what the minister has said today about Scottish studies. The way that we teach Scottish studies just now is interwoven with a number of different subjects, including English, modern studies, history and others.
I thank Kezia Dugdale for making that point. I merely emphasise what I said before about the recognition of a Scottish studies qualification. One of the options that is being considered is an interdisciplinary idea in which recognition could be given to people who are studying Scottish material across a range of subjects. We are not against interdisciplinary working.
The minister’s intervention is helpful, particularly as he said in his opening remarks that greater structure is necessary to provide Scottish studies, whereas I believe that the curriculum for excellence is about breaking structures down.
Moving on to what is currently taught in Scottish schools, the minister said that there should be an “expectation for all” to learn about Scottish studies. I think that there is at present, so I had a wee look at the detail. As I said, my dad is an English teacher, and I spent some time this morning looking at the set texts for higher English. I soon discovered that there are no set texts in higher English, which was a great surprise to me because my house was always covered with copies of “Sunset Song”, “The Cone Gatherers”, “Macbeth” and books by Norman MacCaig, Edwin Morgan, Liz Lochhead and Robert Burns—that is what my dad taught, and I was surrounded by those books throughout my childhood.
I thought that I should find out what is taught now, so I spoke to Alan Wilson, who is qualifications manager at the Scottish Qualifications Authority. He told me that the basis of the higher English qualification is that
“The study of literature should pervade the Course”,
and that
“The system of assessment is designed to allow teachers, lecturers and candidates the freedom to choose the literary texts that will in their view best encourage development and enrichment.”
Those are the qualities that we want in our kids: the ability to develop and enrich their ideas about the world and about what they are learning, and to apply those to the rest of their life.
However, Alan Wilson also points out that candidates should study
“at least one Scottish text”
in higher English, and members need to recognise that.
I had a wee look at last year’s higher English paper, partly to see if I could still do it; I am not sure that the answer to that is positive. I was struck by the fact that the close reading exercise from last year’s paper is an essay by Gerry Hassan, which shows that there are Scottish people talking about Scottish interests at the heart of our education system.
There are set texts for advanced higher English, which include works by Burns, Carol Anne Duffy, Hugh MacDiarmid, Robert Henryson, John Byrne, David Lindsay, Liz Lochhead, Edwin Muir, Janice Galloway and Alasdair Gray—I could go on and on.
Moving on from English, perhaps there is a point about modern studies, but even the modern studies curriculum contains a whole section on “Political Issues in the United Kingdom”, which includes two study themes around Scotland, “Devolved Decision Making in Scotland” and “Political Parties and their Policies (including the Scottish Dimension)”. It is all already here.
Rob Gibson rose—
I am just coming on to a point that Rob Gibson made about higher history. He said that there was nothing in higher history about Scotland’s history, but I have the curriculum in my hands, and it states under the heading “Scottish History” that candidates will study “The Wars of Independence”, “The Age of the Reformation”, “The Treaty of Union”, “Migration and Empire” and “The Impact of the Great War”. It is all here.
As Kezia Dugdale knows, it is up to the teachers to choose which of those sections they will teach. How many people learn about the wars of independence in comparison with the first world war?
I am afraid that Rob Gibson is incorrect. I am reading from the SQA guidelines on higher history, which state:
“Candidates must respond to one context within each Unit”.
There is an entire unit on Scottish history—it is there, and there is no denying or avoiding it. That is what our teachers are teaching.
Labour is saying today that we need the detail on what the minister is proposing. How will it be taught, and who will teach it? Will it be one teacher, or will English, modern studies and history teachers be brought into the classroom together? What impact will that have on timetabling? We need to see the detail, as that is what concerns us.
In an interesting article for the Scottish Review, Andrew Hook, who is a professor of English literature at the University of Glasgow, said:
“The minister, Dr Allan, spoke originally about the need to teach Scottish ‘history, literature, language and culture’. This seems reasonable enough even if what Scottish ‘language’ means is far from clear. But in the end all will depend on the detail of the proposal. Is it really sensible to suggest that Scottish studies should be taught in every year of primary and secondary school? Taught by whom? What will the impact of Scottish studies be on the current teaching of Scottish literature in English courses and Scottish history in history courses? ... Is Irish studies taught in Irish schools? Or Welsh studies in Welsh schools?”
He wants those questions to be explored.
This morning, I put out a request on Twitter for people to feed into my speech this afternoon. I received one response that summed up Labour’s position and how we feel about the debate. David Nicholson said to me:
“Personally I don’t see any problems with Scottish studies so long as the SNP don’t interfere with the course and what’s in it”.
That is very much how Labour feels about the debate. I will leave it there.
15:35
Perhaps Jack McConnell’s most useful contribution to Scottish political debate was his introduction of the term “Scottish cringe” into widespread use. Today, there has been a little touch of a cringe and even a little touch of a sneer from some quarters. However, since the initial response to the Scottish studies proposal, a welcome development has taken place in the tone of the debate generally. Rather than being a nationalist plot, Scottish studies is already happening.
Will Marco Biagi give way?
In previous education debates, I have taken two interventions from Mr Findlay, neither of which was constructive or useful. However, perhaps it will be third time lucky.
Is Marco Biagi seriously saying that that was the most positive contribution of Jack McConnell’s time as First Minister? I hope that Marco Biagi recalls the McCrone agreement, which gave us a settlement in our schools for many years. Surely he is not so bitter that that is the only comment that he can make.
From third time lucky to three strikes and you are out. I will continue—that intervention does not even deserve an answer.
Until Mr Findlay intervened, a consensus was developing. We all accept that learning about Scotland’s history, literature and music—the Scottish context—is a good thing, which is a decent starting point. Of course, much of that is happening already; we can agree on that, too. However, there is nothing incompatible in recognising that much great teaching of the Scottish context takes place while recognising that many shortfalls and inconsistencies exist and believing that what is good practice or even common practice must become standard practice.
The principle that is at stake is clear. The entitlement to an education is inseparable from the entitlement to an education about the society in which we live. Curriculum for excellence is strong on that. I do not accept the argument that, because Scottish studies would fit in well with curriculum for excellence’s ethos, it cannot happen. That seems to be an argument in favour of Scottish studies. I am left bemused at the state of a country in which the right to learn about the society in which we live is even contested.
Let us be clear: good practice exists, but gaps remain. That has been most obvious and most talked about in history. The last attempt that I could find to gauge knowledge of Scottish history was a study of 3,000 secondary 4s—it is a little dated and could perhaps do with being revisited—that was peer reviewed and published in The Curriculum Journal. It is most worrying that the main reason that was chosen—by 37 per cent—for the act of union was an English military conquest of Scotland. The most popular description of Culloden—chosen by 41 per cent—was a battle between wholly Scottish and wholly English armies. I put it very gently to anyone who is sceptical about Scottish studies that ending those misconceptions would in no way be nationalist brainwashing.
In case anyone thinks that I am singling out the youth of today—although the cohort to which I referred are my contemporaries—a 2004 study of 1,000 people across the United Kingdom on British history by the BBC found that distinctions between ages were minimal. However, 6 per cent of respondents to that study thought that the Spanish armada’s vanquisher was Gandalf from “The Lord of the Rings”, so perhaps the most important finding is a cautionary one about multiple-choice questions.
I am not the only one who thinks that there is a gap here. The Government has very much reflected civic society on the matter. As well as the Scottish studies working group, which has been given credibility by the involvement of figures such as Liz Lochhead, we had, in 2010, the literature working group, which worked with the Government in a cultural rather than educational context. One of the wide-ranging recommendations in its report, which I was drawn to in preparation for this debate, urged the inclusion of a mandatory question on Scottish literature in higher English. I do not know the background, but I suggest that that was the source of the current proposal. The group, which was chaired by The Herald’s literary editor, included Allan Massie and Andy Nicoll and I am sure that anyone who suggests that it was an agent of tartan parochialism can look forward to a very hearty write-up in The Sun.
Given the lack of any research, one cannot help citing personal experience in this debate. If members are going to be anecdotal, I should perhaps add my own anecdote, which, as I pointed out somewhat insensitively to some of my colleagues yesterday, is perhaps a little more contemporary than most.
For me, geography was the exemplar subject. Glaciation was taught with reference to the Clyde coast and Glen Fruin and the starting point for examining urban land use was the town in which we lived. It was a fine example of teaching of universal concepts through a Scottish context. Such an approach meant that learners could more readily access and identify the subject matter. It felt alive and relevant.
I have nothing but the highest praise for music, which ranged with a very even hand across cultures, genres and periods. However, I took English for six years and, aside from one Liz Lochhead poem, the closest it ever came to Scottish literature was “Macbeth”—which does not count. Do not even get me started on history. Two of my nephews now attend the same school and, as far as I can see, little has changed. That kind of patchwork needs to be addressed.
Will the member give way?
I am running out of time, so I think that I will just end there.
You can take the intervention if you want to, Mr Biagi.
Okay then—go for it.
Is Marco Biagi not making the argument for the integration of Scottish studies into the curriculum?
Yes. In fact, I think that that is what I am here to do. The challenge is to get right the detail of how Scottish studies will work and integrate with the curriculum. Nevertheless, I think that we all agree that it would be a useful addition. The phrase
“a distinct strand of learning”
in the working group remit sums it up. The subject can be woven very effectively into what exists at the moment to ensure that this universal entitlement comes to pass and I have high hopes that in a few years we will all look back on this and wonder what all the fuss was about.
15:42
The introduction of Scottish studies into the curriculum for primary and secondary schools is long overdue. That is not to say that much does not already happen—and happen well—in some schools but too much happens by default, not by design. The subject is too important to be left to chance. Giving children the opportunity to discover all aspects of the country in which they live gives them a sense of place and knowledge that will serve them well in whatever their walk of life, whatever their career path and wherever they live thereafter. The members of the working group need to look at the excellent teaching practice that already exists and which has already been highlighted to ensure that current best practice can become common practice.
In the mid 1980s I visited schools in the Soviet Union—or what are now Russia and the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. In a primary school in Vilnius, 60 nine and 10-year-olds sang “O my Luve’s like a red, red rose” word perfect in Scots. Then they sang it in Lithuanian and Russian. It made me wonder how many Scottish schoolchildren could actually sing it in Scots. Just in case members think that there was a lot of preparation for my visit, I should point out that we were in a communist state and the school did not know that we were coming. Although our history and many aspects of our culture are of interest to other countries, we seem reluctant to share them with our own children.
Of course, Scotland’s history is not something that we can always be proud of. Our role in the British empire, in slavery and in land acquisition in other countries are all part of it and need to be learned. We need to learn about our mistakes and although our past can be inglorious, that is no reason not to teach history; indeed, it is a reason why it should be taught well, properly and exactly.
Scottish studies surely represents the best opportunity to share the many cultures in our country and to do more than acknowledge them. It occurs to me that most motions that are lodged by members are to do with celebrating excellence—often in history, or in the commemorative work of some group or other in their community. We share and pass on such things in the Parliament, but we do not generalise across the nation to recognise their worth.
Scotland has produced and continues to produce creators, innovators, original thinkers and high achievers in philosophy, literature, science, medicine, geology, mathematics, product invention and design, textiles, art, agriculture, poetry, architecture, fashion, sport and many more areas. That knowledge could encourage and inspire our young folk. Indeed, more than that, I believe that it is our duty to deliver information about that and that it is their right to have that.
The Parliament supports a great many organisations and agencies that are trusted with much of the nation’s wealth, all of which have—or should have—educational programmes. I am thinking of the national companies, the National Library of Scotland, the orchestras, the Scottish Youth Theatre and others. An impressive brochure from the Scottish Council on Archives, which is one of those organisations, landed in our mailboxes only this week. Sally Magnusson says in that brochure’s foreword:
“Our archives are our national memory. They show us the forging of the Scottish nation over the centuries and open a window on its contacts with other peoples and cultures.”
Members do not know everything there is to know about Scottish history or about one another’s constituencies and regions. How many people have met the Gaelic-speaking Pakistani community in the Western Isles? How many people know that Chinese schoolchildren are teaching other children Mandarin in primary schools in the north-west Highlands? There are extraordinary, extreme and wonderful parts of our education system and extraordinary, extreme and wonderful cultures that our children are aware of and are being taught about, but we need to share that. If we do not know that, how on earth are we to govern?
There are children who will, in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time, take our seats in the Parliament. If we have a national curriculum in which national Scottish studies is taught, I suspect that they will be better informed than those of us who are in the chamber today, who have heard of Up-Helly-Aa in Shetland and may have heard of the magnificent book festival in the south-west of Scotland. They will know and understand; better still, they will have studied some of the authors whose names are yet to be discovered.
It is interesting that members have mentioned authors in their keenness to explain that Scottish studies are taught sufficiently and to show how well they did by the education system, as they can identify MacDiarmid, Lewis Grassic Gibbon and others. However, there are contemporary authors. Scotland’s publishers publish nearly 1,000 Scottish literature books a year. We need to have that information in our schools, and people need to know about it. We may not read all of those books and we may not need to know all that, but we need to know what the country is capable of doing and is doing.
Children and young people have the right to know about all those agencies and to take advantage of them, but everything cannot be left to the teachers and other experts in their respective fields. The new study should deliver a message for us all to better understand the different aspects of Scottish life. All of us have much to learn; ignorance is not bliss.
15:49
I pay tribute to the very high standard of teaching of Scottish history and culture that there already is in our schools. I am aware of that not only through personal experience, but from speaking to parents and teachers throughout my region.
I think we all agree that it is important that pupils learn about Scottish history and culture, and that it is important for our pupils to learn global, European and shared British history and culture so that our young people are encouraged to be outward looking and to develop an informed perspective of the world. We want to see an outward-looking, multinational and multicultural Scotland. All the parties support the one Scotland, many cultures campaign. That ethos has been promoted in schools and should continue to be promoted. The aim should be to provide a balanced education that recognises our heritage and culture and which teaches our children to be outward looking. We need a balanced approach.
I strongly believe that it is important for young people to learn about the distinctive local heritage even within Scotland, such as the industrial history in the west of Scotland. I do not propose the introduction of Renfrewshire studies or west of Scotland studies, although I am sure that they would be extremely interesting. I do not need to propose that, because schools, particularly in Renfrewshire, teach local and Scottish history very well. I remember in my primary school in Kilbarchan learning about the work of weavers in Renfrewshire during the 18th and 19th centuries. As part of that, we visited the weaver’s cottage in Kilbarchan, which is run by the National Trust for Scotland. At the cottage, which pupils at Kilbarchan primary school still visit, people can see how weavers lived and worked. It is an excellent site, and I recommend that members and parents and pupils should visit it if they get the opportunity.
I experienced another good example while at Gryffe high school. In my history class, I was taught about Mary Queen of Scots, Robert the Bruce and William Wallace as well as the industrial revolution and the struggle of the cotton mill workers in Paisley. We also visited New Lanark, which the minister mentioned, to learn about the Welshman Robert Owen and the foundations of the co-operative movement. That was engaging and informative and contributed to a balanced curriculum.
The focus on local history was interesting and stimulating because it was not abstract and was something that pupils could participate in. That type of learning was not directed from the centre, but it is a perfect example of how local history and culture can be delivered at local authority level, as it should continue to be delivered. The curriculum for excellence allows teachers the freedom to take into account local activity. I hope that any introduction of a Scottish studies course across the board would not remove that flexibility. I hope that the working group will take that point into account.
We have several concerns. As members have mentioned, the introduction of Scottish studies should not lead to the sacrifice or limiting of other subjects that are taught in our schools. The unfortunate fact is that the timetable is already overcrowded and leaves little room for manoeuvre. Members have mentioned the importance of modern languages and learning about other cultures. We live in an increasingly interdependent world, so we should seek to maintain the number of foreign languages that are taught in our schools in order to better equip the youth of today for the future. Concerns about that have been raised with me.
I welcome the member’s support for modern languages. Will he, likewise, welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to increasing children’s awareness of Scottish languages and to exposing them meaningfully to two modern languages in addition to their own?
I will always support the provision of opportunities for young people to learn modern languages. I hope that that will continue. I am sure that all members know that the Chinese economy is fast becoming the biggest economy in the world and that 1 billion people speak Mandarin. There is a compelling economic argument for modern languages.
At last week’s meeting of the Public Petitions Committee, we heard concerns about cuts to east European studies and languages at the University of Glasgow. If the cuts are not reversed, those subjects will not be taught anywhere in the United Kingdom outside London. I accept that that relates to the university sector, but I hope that we can maintain modern languages in schools, too.
We have concerns that introducing Scottish studies would put more pressure on teaching staff, particularly at a time when we have lost thousands of teachers across Scotland.
I am slightly concerned that the proposal to introduce Scottish studies implies a failure by our schools to provide sufficient teaching of Scottish history and culture. Like Claire Baker, I am concerned about the minister’s comment that, although Scotland prides itself on its education system, there is an acknowledgement that it has failed to give people basic information about their country. Around 166,000 young people left school between 2007 and 2010, when the SNP was in power. Is the SNP saying that they left school without sufficient knowledge of their country? I do not recognise that. I believe that schools are doing a good job in this area in difficult circumstances.
Perhaps the minister could clarify what basic information is not being taught. As I have described, there are already significant roles for Scottish history in today’s history classes, for Scottish geography in geography lessons, for Scottish literature and poetry in English studies, and for Scottish culture across the board. I hope that the Government and the working group will consider those points and take them into account when it looks at the issue of Scottish studies.
We have quite a bit of time in hand, so Clare Adamson has a very generous six minutes.
15:55
I welcome this Scottish Government debate.
Defining Scottish studies is not an easy task. Thankfully, that task falls to the Scottish studies working group as it determines the way forward. That said, I happened upon one definition that encapsulates what I would like to see. Scottish studies should
“promote, preserve and perpetuate through studies in all related areas—the culture, music, language, arts, crafts, customs and traditions of ... Scotland.”
If we can include under “traditions” our remarkable scientific achievements, I think that that definition covers just about everything. However, I am being a little bit disingenuous, because that quote does not come from Scotland, a Scottish academic, a Scottish scientist or a Scottish cultural icon. It is the mission statement of the Gaelic College in Nova Scotia in Canada, except that where I have said “traditions of Scotland”, it uses the phrase
“traditions of immigrants of the highlands of Scotland.”
I find it ironic that we are debating the merits of Scottish studies in Scottish schools when it is evident that the rest of the world and the Scottish diaspora understand fully the importance of such work.
In 2009, the esteemed Scottish historian Tom Devine reviewed the BBC’s “A History of Scotland” in an article for The Journal. In framing his review, he stated:
“The educational deficit in the teaching of Scottish history in our schools, which has been a scandal for many decades, was now being vigorously debated and plans were put forward for welcome improvements. It was also widely agreed that post-devolution Scotland urgently needed to develop a greater sense of itself and of the nation’s place in the world.”
I can think of no more compelling argument for the incorporation of Scottish studies in our curriculum. Given that one of the world’s leading historians talked, as recently as 2009, of the teaching of Scottish history in our schools as a “scandal”, we in the Parliament should surely take note.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Given that one of our leading academics told us, as recently as 2009, that there was a consensus for the development of a greater sense of ourselves and of our nation’s place in the world, we should not only take note but take action. The establishment of Scottish studies within our curriculum and exam diet is the action that is needed.
Clare Adamson has referred to Scottish studies as a qualification subject. Does she agree that it is important that the working group examines the detail of how that could be delivered, given the need to be confident about teacher skills in the area and about the existence of enough space in the curriculum to deliver such a course?
Yes, absolutely. I think that I stressed at the beginning of my speech that it is for the working group to determine the way forward.
Scottish studies is a fabric as intricately interwoven as our tartans, in which all the threads that define our history, our invention, our culture, our emigration and immigration, and our scientific advances come together to define us as Scots and our nation as Scotland.
By way of example, I turn to Robert Burns, who is one of our best-known international cultural icons. He wrote that reading Blind Harry’s “Wallace”
“poured a Scottish prejudice in my veins which will boil along there till the flood gates of life shut in eternal rest”.
He went on to write “Scots, wha hae”. There we have Scottish history, in the shape of the wars of independence in the 13th century, inspiring Blind Harry in 1477, and then Blind Harry inspiring Burns in 1792. Those threads of our history and literature are interwoven into our cultural tartan.
Of course, Burns was inspired by more than our history. “To a Mouse” was framed from our agricultural heritage, “Twa Dugs” takes political significance for social satire and, only a few months ago, we heard in the chamber a beautiful rendition of “Westlin Winds”, which was inspired by our countryside and natural heritage—I think a lassie might have inspired him on that one too.
I chose Robert Burns because he sits at the heart of the Scottish enlightenment. If we are truly to develop a greater sense of Scotland and its place in the world, it is vital that our children understand the world-changing impact of the Scottish enlightenment. Do they know that modern geology was founded by James Hutton in this country? They need to understand the world-framing ideas that Scotland gave to philosophy, political economy, engineering, architecture, medicine, geology, archaeology, law, agriculture, chemistry and sociology—I hope that I have not missed anything.
However, Scottish studies should not be only about our past; our contemporary contribution to the world should also be recognised and should inspire in our classrooms.
This is not the first time that I have mentioned the work that Matthew Fitt did with students from Airdrie and Hamilton to develop a colloquial Scots dialect brochure for children who took part in the international children’s games. The project taught children from my home area to value not only their mither tongue but themselves.
Next week, I will welcome students aged 14 to 17 from the Goethe-Gymnasium in Frankfurt, who are visiting the Parliament as part of their studies of Scottish politics. Those studies include investigating the idea of Scottish independence; our relationship to Great Britain and the European Union; and the immigration policies and political concepts of our Scottish parties. I look forward to welcoming Scottish children deliberating on the same subjects post the introduction of Scottish studies.
There is plenty of time for interventions. I call John Finnie, who has a generous six minutes.
16:03
I am heartened that there have clearly been many changes since I was educated in rural north Britain in the 1960s, a part of the world where people were belted for speaking in Gaelic.
I was upbeat until I heard the phrase—I hope that I have noted it correctly—
“at least one Scottish text”
must be taught, and I thought, “Yup, aye.” Indeed, I thought, “Glè mhath.”
What are we trying to achieve with Scottish studies? It must improve our children’s knowledge. I also suggest that it is like the opportunity to clarify, strengthen and consolidate in law reform. That is the route that we are on. No one denies that much work has been done already and that it needs to be built on.
The curriculum for excellence talks about “connected learning experience”. The connection that I would like to be made concerns Scotland’s place in the world—how we connect with the world and, indeed, how we connect within the complex society that is Scotland. Who could take exception to
“developing a sense of identity, confidence and wellbeing”?
Like most nationalists, I am first and foremost an internationalist and I welcome the move to broaden knowledge.
We must recognise the different traditions within Scotland. Rob Gibson, who is unfortunately not in the chamber, touched on the situation in Caithness, where there is a conflict between some people who wish to term themselves Norse and some who wish to term themselves Gaels. We need to recognise the local dimension that learning can have.
We also have the Lowland Scots and the rich mix that later joined to make Scotland: people from elsewhere in these islands, such as the two traditions in Ireland; people from the Indian subcontinent; and, more recently, people from Europe. To my mind, they should all be part of Scottish studies. Scotland has always been a refuge for people fleeing from oppression and, notwithstanding what I consider to be the heavy-handed UK Border Agency, long may that continue to be the case. That is an area worth highlighting.
At lunch time, along with other people, I was part of the celebration of Show Racism the Red Card, which is an excellent example of learning that has a very clear Scottish dimension.
I am delighted that Arthur Cormack, a well-respected musician and Gaelic authority is on the Scottish studies working group. There is clearly an opportunity to influence what the public thinks should contribute to teaching. A number of members have mentioned Culloden. I would like to see some concentration on Culloden, although not the misty-eyed version that we have heard referred to but the version that highlights the individual greed of aspirant monarchs, the duplicity of clan chiefs and indeed the sacrifice of the indigenous population. Jean Urquhart touched on the aftermath of Culloden; the shameful role played in that by the church and the law as it was at the time needs to be looked at too.
We know that those dispossessed people were part of a positive advancement across the world, but they were also complicit in some brutal treatment of native Americans, aboriginal peoples, Maoris and the like. I wonder whether there will be a place in Scottish studies for Màiri Mhòr and the battle of the braes in Skye. I hope that there will also be mention of the tanks in George Square, but will there be mention of the British ships that were sent to quell the natives of Skye?
It is important that we move away from the tea-towel representation of our citizens, despite all their many achievements, and concentrate on the broader aspects, such as the relationship with the Baltic states and Russia, and the role of mercenaries, traders and academics. We also need to look behind those roles for the shared educational experiences that continue to this day through trading with the European Union and the peace that it has brought through our role then and now.
The minister touched on linguistics. There is well-documented research to show the benefit of bilingualism. It is evident in the Highlands, where there has been a Gaelic renaissance. Perhaps the curriculum could pick up on aspects of that such as the revitalisation of entire communities, particularly in the south end of Skye—the employment opportunities that have been created there; the little-known fact that some of the courses are so popular that they are provided for German speakers only; the internet opportunities; and the fact that one of the most innovative parts of the globe is in the south of Skye.
I was brought up in the Highlands amid all the hydro schemes that were the excellent pioneering work of Tom Johnston, the visionary Labour Secretary of State for Scotland at the end of the second world war, but that was never taught to me. It was thought to be more appropriate that I know about Tudor England and the Romans.
It is important that we all throw our weight behind Scottish studies. I am certain that the concerns about it have been dispelled. I plead that we should not do a disservice to our educational or political structure. Let us dispel the myth that any political party, even one with a majority, could or would wish to pervert our children’s minds. Have faith in the integrity of our teachers and in any revised curriculum, and Scotland will be the richer for it.
16:08
I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been made on all sides of the debate, and I thank all members who have contributed so far.
The Government’s pronouncements on Scottish studies have thrown up more questions than answers. I was interested to hear the minister’s remarks, but a number of points still require some explanation. Perhaps, when he makes his closing speech, he will be able to answer some of my questions and alleviate some of my concerns.
I ask the Scottish Government for clarity about why such a change is necessary, how it will be implemented, and what the end product will be. In Scottish schools, pupils already learn about Scottish history, geography, literature and culture. In primary schools, children learn about our national flag, where it came from and what it represents. They also learn about the poetry of Burns and the Burns tradition, which is alive and well in our schools today. In secondary schools, young people learn about Scotland, too. They learn about Scottish dance, Scottish food and Scottish music. They learn about our natural history, our economic history and our social history. Already, our young people routinely learn about this country. Why does the Scottish Government feel that teaching about Scotland and the study of Scotland are so inadequate?
If the Government feels that more time should be committed to the study of Scotland, which subjects will lose out? I do not need to remind the minister of the pressures on school timetables and on teachers. He will no doubt have received the same letters and e-mails about the McCormac review as I have. I note that we are holding a debate on Scottish studies months before the working group, chaired by the minister, comes to a final view or issues a final report. There are other issues that demand a more immediate response from the Scottish Government and the immediate attention of the Parliament, such as the increase in teachers’ pension contributions, the erosion of the McCrone agreement, the gap in attainment between better-off youngsters and those from deprived backgrounds, probationary teachers struggling to find work, the levels of youth unemployment and the scandal of the estimated 13,000 school leavers experiencing difficulty with basic literacy and numeracy. Those must be the minister’s priorities for as long as he holds office, as they are far more fundamental to our future.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Will the minister explain why the Scottish Government has used its time in the chamber for a debate on Scottish studies when his working group has yet to complete its work?
I also ask for clarification about the curriculum. With curriculum for excellence, schools are supposed to be given greater freedom over what they teach and to promote interdisciplinary learning and crossover with other subjects. Some of the most exciting and innovative learning about Scotland has been a product of curriculum for excellence, so I ask for the minister’s assurance that that kind of innovation will continue. I also ask the Scottish Government to rule out top-down imposition of changes in the curriculum in order to roll out Scottish studies. These decisions should lie first and foremost with the schools themselves.
I invite the minister to outline in more detail the content of the new Scottish studies course. What exactly will students of Scottish studies learn and how much of the course content will repeat work that is already done in other subjects? After completing a course of Scottish studies, what qualifications are to be gained and where will those qualifications sit in the qualifications framework? How useful will those qualifications be to students? For example, does the minister envisage that a qualification in Scottish studies will help young people in Scotland to get into university?
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you. I want to continue.
As someone who worked in the training sector—at the University of Strathclyde and as an external verifier for the Scottish Qualifications Authority—I think that those points are crucial.
I have asked questions of the Government that I hope the minister will answer in his summing-up speech. I have set out my priorities for Scottish education, from supporting the teaching profession to raising attainment and from tackling youth unemployment to dealing with illiteracy and innumeracy. Those are the pressing issues for Scottish education and for Scottish society. They are the issues that demand our attention and which I would have preferred the Scottish Government to debate today.
16:14
As I have said before in the chamber, I am a migrant to Scotland. I always knew that I had some Scottish ancestry, but my parents did not grow up in Scotland and did not know much about its geography, history and role in developing the modern world or, indeed, issues such as the Scottish enlightenment, so those things were never explained to me as a child.
That is no criticism of my parents—they were educated elsewhere, so they could not be at fault. None of that information could be passed to me by my parents directly; instead, I gained it through my school and, in the main, by studying outside of school, because the curriculum did not cover a lot about Scotland or even my local area. Aside from a brief period on the Roman invasion, medieval Scotland and the wars of independence, most of what I learned at school was about British history and, to a degree, international history such as the French revolution, the Crimean war and other major world events.
My fondest memories of school are of history lessons although, unfortunately, I had to give history up at the end of second year due to a clash in the curriculum. I very much welcome the concept that Scottish studies might be woven through the curriculum in various different areas, so that children will be exposed to Scottish history, culture and literature as they go through their schooling and they will not have to leave it all to the choice of their parents whether they have access to a discrete subject.
I also loved geography. With all the debate about the future of Scotland and renewable energy and some of the dubious claims about wind turbines altering the nature of the landscape, it would do us all some good to reflect on the fact that most of the landscape that we see today is to a degree man-made and influenced by man. Whether that is a result of clearing trees or burning heather, it is very much a man-made creation; there is very little wilderness left in Scotland.
I am sure that we are all familiar with the fact that newspapers regularly report pupils’ lack of knowledge of basic information. Marco Biagi cited one example, which might be the same one that I am about to refer to. I was staggered to hear that the Daily Mail had reported on 4 November 2009—I point out to my colleagues that I do not read that newspaper regularly—that just 4 per cent of secondary pupils could correctly link the battle of Culloden to the Jacobite uprising in 1745. I found that quite extraordinary.
The population are not stupid. They know that this is not about pseudo-nationalist undertones or indeed brainwashing, as others have suggested. If what has been said is true, the many years of history that I was taught about the British empire must surely have been an attempt to brainwash me into unionism.
Surely Mr Wheelhouse must realise that, for the vast majority of people in Scotland, the history of their nation is the history of the United Kingdom.
That was a brave attempt from Mr Johnstone.
Our people understand that it is only normal to help our children understand not only the world they live in but the country they live in and how it has arrived at its position in the world today—our children have an absolute right to know that. Most people accept that that is only fair and, as the minister stated, some 90 per cent of those surveyed—admittedly, this survey was on the Gaelic language—thought that it was a good idea for Scottish studies to be a key strand of the curriculum.
We should also see this as an investment in our workforce. Scotland is a country that depends to a great degree on tourism. If we give people more than just the basic information—if we give them as much information as we can about their country—how much better will the quality of our tourism offering to those visiting the country be?
I have a concern about the tone and the implication that teaching at the moment is basic. Having been a teacher for 15 years and having worked as a supply teacher as well as a part-time teacher across South Lanarkshire, I know that I was never in a primary school where what we have all talked about today was not embedded right the way across the curriculum. John Finnie’s point about localism is important. I am burbling on here—I am sorry—but the suggestion that teachers are not teaching these things across the curriculum, with a local element, is extraordinary. It is happening and kids thrive on it.
I hear what the member says, but I have to disagree. We are not just talking about people teaching basic information; I am trying to say that we need to go beyond the basic. People need to go beyond the wars of independence and Robert Burns to understand the nature of events, why they happened and what influence they have today. I do not think that that degree of explanation is provided in the current curriculum.
The teaching of Scottish studies has an important role to play in workforce development for key sectors such as tourism. If we can improve the experience of tourists who visit this country so that they come across people who have an understanding of the areas around them—so that there are 5.2 million people who can give advice about a local attraction—that will be a great enhancement to our offering to the world.
We need to bear it in mind that we are equipping our population to be more confident as well. If people know where they are coming from, they have more confidence in where they are going as individuals and as a country.
The teaching of Scottish studies is about ensuring that a new generation of Scots know more about their country. In the course of their studies, every child growing up in Scotland learns of the many great inventions that we have given to the world. As Clare Adamson mentioned, it would be much easier to inspire children in subjects such as science if they knew about the many people who came from a similar background and made a significant breakthrough in science, medicine or engineering. It is not a question of teaching people just about battles, the treaty of union and various other historic events; it is about teaching them about how society has developed and the influence that Scots have had on that society over the years.
Exploring history can reveal interesting parallels to today. English parliamentary records of 1606 show that, when a project of union between Scotland and England was being debated in the House of Commons in London, the opposing party pointed out:
“If we admit them”—
the Scots—
“into our liberties, we shall be overrun with them ... witness the multiplicities of the Scots in Polonia.”
That was a reference to Poland—my colleague John Finnie alluded to that issue, too. If we educate people about the history of migrations of Scots to the rest of the world, we can perhaps deal with some of the ignorance and prejudice shown towards those migrating to Scotland today. At that point, some 30,000 families were accepted to have settled in Poland—possibly more than 100,000 people if their children were there too. That is confirmed by various texts from the early 20th century.
Thus, many people in Polish towns such as Danzig or Gdansk perhaps owe their ancestry to those Scots who moved there as mercenaries or merchants in the 16th century. That information can play an important part in equipping our schoolchildren today with knowledge of the nature of Scottish society and how our society has influenced other countries, which will perhaps deal with some of the ignorance that still pervades among the adult population about the nature of migrants to Scotland today.
I will give one last example of why I think that it is important to deal with history. In the south of Scotland, which the Presiding Officer will be familiar with, it is often misunderstood that Scots, or the language of the Angles, was the first language. There was certainly no Gaelic down there, but there was a Welsh-speaking community many centuries before the Angles invaded from the east and the Scots invaded from the north.
I am grateful to the member for confirming that there was no Gaelic in the south of Scotland. Does he therefore wonder why ScotRail has been mandated to put Gaelic names on all the stations on the Glasgow to Ayr line, to promote a language that the people never spoke?
There are actually a number of Gaelic place names in the Borders. For example, Galashiels is a combination of Angle and Gaelic, and there are places such as the Merse as well.
We should not be too simplistic about this—indeed, I am probably in danger of being simplistic myself. I am trying to say that there are many people in my area who as adults and children have no idea of that period of their history. They have no idea that the south of Scotland had a rich culture before the Romans came and a rich culture after the Romans went and that the languages have changed a number of times. It is a good example of how local history should be taught as well.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have just come to an end, unfortunately.
Perhaps you will be able to intervene later, Claudia.
I call Joan McAlpine. You have a very generous six minutes.
16:24
The great African novelist Chinua Achebe said:
“No one can teach me who I am.”
He meant that we need to look inside ourselves to be comfortable in our skin, whatever colour our skin happens to be and whatever language we happen to speak. That is especially relevant to the core principles of curriculum for excellence, which is about the creation of confident learners and active citizens—something that cannot be imposed from the outside. It hinges on a sense of self-respect and a sense of self-worth.
I opened with the quote from Achebe not just because his novel “Things Fall Apart” is one of the greatest of the 20th century, but because the debate can benefit Scotland by looking at Scottish studies in an international context. Achebe is from a sizeable minority inside Nigeria called the Igbo, and “Things Fall Apart” looks at how colonialism and Christianity fracture the social cohesion of a 19th century Igbo village in an incredibly subtle way. Although Achebe celebrates the traditional way of life and the social values of the community, he is also sensitive to its cruelty and occasional superstition. Achebe shies away from moral absolutes in his work, saying:
“I never will take the stand that the Old must win or that the New must win. ... No single man can be correct all the time”.
To that, he later added that no single culture can be correct all the time, observing that
“what is good among one people is an abomination with others.”
I am aware of the difficulties and potential offensiveness that are inherent in comparing Scotland’s experience to that of peoples from former colonies of the British empire. As Jean Urquhart and John Finnie have said, Scots played their part in that empire as soldiers, slave traders, plantation owners and land grabbers. However, we have some things in common. It took Achebe a long time to be published in the English language because most editors at the time did not recognise his experiences as being valid subjects for literature. That was back in the 1950s and relates to racist treatment of him.
Members may think that the situation has changed over the years. However, several decades later, in 1994, there was a row when James Kelman won the Booker prize for “How Late It Was, How Late”, which describes the experiences of a Glasgow man who has been struck blind as he tries to deal with the authorities and convince them of the validity of his illness. The book was inspired by Kelman’s work with asbestos victims on Clydeside and their struggle to have the disease recognised by the authorities. The Booker judges fell out over the novel, with some, such as Julia Neuberger, saying that it was the work of a “savage”. In London, The Times columnist Simon Jenkins said that the award of the Booker prize to Kelman
“contrived to insult literature and patronise the savage”.
Kelman responded by saying:
“My culture and my language have the right to exist, and no one has the authority to dismiss that right”.
He added that
“a fine line can exist between elitism and racism. On matters concerning language and culture the distinction can sometimes cease altogether.”
It is interesting that Jenkins has since moved to The Guardian, a very different sort of newspaper, in which he recently wrote a column about Scotland under the headline, “It is time for England’s first empire to get independence”. Perhaps he has had time to reflect on his views of 17 years ago.
Far from being a savage, Kelman is a thoughtful and intellectual writer whose work is inspired by the linguistic theories of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky found that we all have an innate set of grammatical rules and that all language is valid—bad grammar and bad language do not make a person any less human.
When I interviewed Kelman about his more recent novel, “Kieron Smith, Boy”, we spent a long time talking about the language of his characters and how some middle-class Scots are also offended by it. We talked about how our Scots language has changed and is far less rich in vocabulary than it was in the time of Burns. In the 18th century, after the union, elocution classes became all the rage as people struggled to get rid of Scotticisms from their voice. Over time, Scots became considered the language of the crass, the uneducated and the gutter. Scots was not developed in religion or literature for a long time, and it was not used in the classroom, in the courtroom or, latterly, on the television, except perhaps for comedy.
That habit continues to this day at every level of society, and James Kelman talks about it in “Kieron Smith, Boy”. He describes Scottish parents’ habit of correcting the way in which their kids speak—I am as guilty of that as other people and correct myself for correcting them—telling them that it is “mummy”, not “mammy”, which is very common in Glasgow. I found out only recently that “mammy” is derived from a Gaelic word—a friend from Barra told me that.
All of that has a corrosive effect on our culture, our self-confidence and even our ability to function as citizens. According to Kelman:
“Children grow up learning they are inferior and their parents are inferior. Right away you disenfranchise entire segments of society.”
For Kelman and Chomsky, syntax itself is universal. We are all capable of expression, even if our language has been systematically destroyed both internally and externally. Kelman believes that the syntactical richness of modern Scots as spoken in the street, not in the poetry reading, is intensified as vocabulary decreases. He points out that the great Russian writers, such as Chekhov, worked with the narrowest vocabulary, yet his work is still great. We could say the same for Samuel Beckett, who is considered a genius.
The process that Kelman and Achebe describe is known as inferiorism—when people diminish their culture from the inside. It was originally identified and named by Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist and philosopher from the French colony of Martinique. He noted that cultures that are dominated by another culture often see that other culture as the bringer of superior ways and universal human values. Political control is asserted by undermining self-belief. It is a form of cringe, in other words, and it extends beyond the way we speak.
We see inferiorism in a lot of the discourse in Scottish society today. We talk about ourselves as being uniquely inarticulate and tongue-tied among the nations of the world. We repeat clichés about Scotland being negative, overly sectarian, overly racist, impoverished, intolerant, lacking in ambition, too sexist and too violent.
We are all those things but so are other societies. We also have much to celebrate, but our children do not get that validation often enough. It is a phenomenon that Chinua Achebe would immediately recognise and one that will be addressed when our children know their own culture well enough to criticise it constructively and celebrate it too.
16:31
We have had some very thoughtful and well-informed speeches, not only from the academic giants among us who are dripping in doctorates, whom we heard in the opening speeches, but from the mere mortals who have followed.
Of course, the debate has focused on the fundamental question that is at issue in our discussion, which is whether there should be on the one hand a separate subject—or “strand of study”, as it is called—to be known as Scottish studies as part of our school curriculum, or on the other hand, a significant Scottish dimension in subjects such as history, modern studies, geography, language and literature, art and science. As a number of members have pointed out, we have to answer the question in the context of a crowded curriculum in which there is already stiff competition for classroom time. We have to ask ourselves, against that background, whether there is merit and value in developing yet another freestanding subject.
As my colleague Elizabeth Smith pointed out in her learned opening speech, the content of curriculum for excellence expressly stresses, in each of its eight curriculum areas, the importance of the Scottish dimension. She referred to a publication that sets out the content of curriculum for excellence and said that it has 317 pages—I have it here. Perhaps some SNP members in particular might like to study it, look at the Scottish dimension and see how it pervades every single aspect of the subjects that our children are being taught at all levels and ages of development in our schools.
For example, we are told that through the study of a classical language,
“young people become ever more aware of how vital parts of Scotland’s culture, the arts, law, political systems and social values are directly and indirectly linked with the classical world.“
According to the document, our children and young people are to be introduced to the
”languages, dialects and literature of Scotland”
through a
“wide range of texts”
to develop in them
“an appreciation of Scotland’s vibrant literary and linguistic heritage.”
In religious and moral education, the purpose is to
“explore and develop knowledge and understanding of religions across the world, recognising the place of Christianity in the Scottish context.”
Social studies is about using
“Scottish, British, European and wider contexts for learning while maintaining a focus on the historical, social, geographic, economic and political changes that have shaped Scotland.”
Those are just a few examples.
I was astonished when Rob Gibson seemed to object to the teaching of the history of the Labour Party. I speak as the member who quoted Aneurin Bevan in my speech this morning. I do not know a huge amount about the history of the Labour Party, but no one can say that the history of the Labour Party could be taught without there being an enormous Scottish dimension to the subject. Mr Gibson might tell us what he was beefing about.
I was pointing out that there are some subjects in the curriculum that are in some ways controversial. I do not object to that at all. I would be interested to learn whether Mr McLetchie knows whether all the strands that he set out are taught in every school at every stage in the curriculum. I do not think that they are, which is why there is a need for Scottish studies.
The SNP has not established the evidence base. What the member and his fellows come up with again and again is simple assertion. In the face of all the evidence about what is going on in our schools—the theory, which is in the document from which I quoted, and the practical examples that members have provided—we have an assertion that not enough is being done.
All the eminent members of the working group made that assertion strongly from the outset and it might be that they are right. How does the member react to that?
It might be that they should do some analysis. Maybe there should be a survey of classroom content in all our schools. Maybe we should get hard evidence to indicate whether the proposal is justified, as opposed to having a hand-picked committee to justify, vindicate and validate the SNP’s particular prejudices. That is what this is about.
The examples that I provided all came from our newly-developed curriculum for excellence. Why do we not give curriculum for excellence a shot? Why do we not trust our schools and our teachers in all subjects to ensure that the Scottish dimension has a special and important place in their teaching? Why do we not trust our teachers to ensure that what they teach is put in the context of the country of which we are citizens and whose social, economic, cultural and political history and experience we have shared and shaped for the past 300 years and more? Why do we not trust our teachers to ensure that, in exemplifying the best of our British culture, proper weight is given to studying the contribution of Burns and other great Scottish poets and writers, as well as the contribution of Shakespeare and other great English, Welsh and Irish writers and poets?
Are we so paranoid and precious that we do not trust our teachers to draw on the experiences of the communities and the country in which they and their pupils live, as an integral part of their lessons? Members see that happening in action every day in the Scottish Parliament, in the school classes that come from all over Scotland to meet members and learn about their work and to learn about our democratic political system and our history. I think that Clare Adamson mentioned that.
I trust our teachers to teach the Scottish dimension, but it is clear that the minister and the SNP Government do not. Why else would the Scottish studies working group have been set up to second-guess all the teachers and educationists who worked so hard to draw up curriculum for excellence and its content?
Will the member give way?
No. I am sorry, minister.
It is interesting that the minister’s working group is expected to meet on a grand total of only three occasions before it reports in January 2012. It does not sound as though much of a comprehensive examination of the evidence base is going on. It strikes me that what we have is not so much a working group as a committee that has been formed to nod through a series of pre-ordained conclusions and provide cover for the Government.
If the minister’s working group is not simply to confirm my suspicions, it will need to provide us with a thorough analysis, which compares the curriculum for excellence route that is already in place, in which we embed the Scottish dimension, with the separate Scottish studies route, which the Government favours. We need to know from the working group how a separate subject will be squeezed into our curriculum and school timetables. The minister might like to tell us whether his working group will undertake any of those tasks. Will we have that analysis? Will we have that comparison? Will we have that costing? Frankly, I do not think that we will. No doubt Mr Russell will prove me wrong. We will wait and see what the response is in the winding-up speech.
The minister began his speech by stating a premise that he hoped that we would all agree with: that our young people should be taught about our history and culture. No one has dissented from that. I entirely agree with it, as other members do. However, that is not at issue; at issue is how we do it. Beyond generalities, there has been no convincing explanation of why the ministers’ preferred route is the correct one.
The question is this: do we need to do this? Frankly, we do not. Why is the Scottish Government doing it? It is doing it because it can.
16:41
It is a privilege to close this debate for Labour this afternoon. I would like to start by tackling head-on Marco Biagi’s assertion that on these benches, and perhaps on others, there is an element of Scottish cringe. I have never experienced the Scottish cringe and I am sure that I speak for my colleagues on the Labour benches and in the Labour Party when I say that none of us has experienced that, and we take exception to being accused of it.
Will the member give way?
I want to make a wee bit of progress first.
I took the opportunity that was offered to me recently by Michael Russell’s office to write an article for a magazine—I am sure that that opportunity was not afforded me in order to divert my time and keep my nose out of Mr Russell’s education policies. In the article, I set out Labour’s patriotism but stopped short of nationalism. Scottish studies is an important subject and I have benefited immeasurably from Sir John Leng medal competitions, Scottish dancing and literature and have experienced some modest success in Burns recitation competitions. Indeed, I was disappointed not to hear more after the initial e-mail that I received from a cross-party colleague—I cannot remember who it was—about a Burns club in Parliament. I would be keen to join that and I hope that this speech serves as a friendly request for an invitation to that event.
I was glad to hear Alasdair Allan’s commitment to having Scottish studies across the curriculum. As a number of members have said, there is a risk that the Scottish studies element that will be introduced in some form or other—a standard grade, a higher or, with regard to this morning’s debate, an HNC or HND, which might bolster our colleges—teachers teaching the mainstream curriculum might choose not to teach the Scottish subjects.
I hope that Jenny Marra will acknowledge that the working group is considering that matter. I ask her to acknowledge that, as I and others have said, one of the options is for people who are studying Scottish subjects across a range of disciplines to be recognised for it, rather than for there to be another higher that competes with others.
We look forward to seeing the working group’s exact proposals and to thinking about how they will work to ensure that Scotland is studied properly in the mainstream curriculum.
As Dr Allan said earlier, he recently visited Dunfermline high school. There, he saw work on the Scottish curriculum in real life. He saw senior drama pupils perform excerpts from plays by Scottish playwrights. He listened to an analysis of a Scottish poem by an English class. He observed higher modern studies pupils investigating the Scottish judicial system, including the children’s panel. He engaged in debate with the advanced higher history class—who, I understand, spontaneously and unanimously told him that they thought that a separate Scottish studies course was a bad idea, which I am sure he will pass on to the working group. He also joined a home economics class that was making cranachan and shortbread, and applauded a first-year PE class following a display of Scottish country dancing. Those events at Dunfermline high school were all happening anyway, within the curriculum for excellence, which shows that ample capacity exists.
On that point, I am seeking two commitments from the Government: first, that the working group will take mainstreaming of the study of Scotland seriously and bolster its proposals in that regard and, secondly, that Scottish studies in the mainstream curriculum will not fall by the wayside.
There has been talk today of “brainwashing” and “indoctrination”, which is very strong language.
On 19 August, Ken Macintosh told the BBC:
“my suspicion is that this is the SNP trying to brainwash children into their political view.”
Does Jenny Marra accept that that may be where my allegations of a slight Scottish cringe came from? Would she distance herself from such language?
That is quite strong language, but Ken Macintosh was trying to make a serious point about balance, interpretation and impartiality. The sacred impartiality of our education system must be paramount, and must be preserved at all costs. I know that colleagues in the Government will agree with that point.
We must explore our rich heritage, culture and traditions, which we cherish on all sides of the political spectrum, but we must ensure that the teachers who are appointed to teach Scottish studies are properly trained in the disciplines of history, literature and language that they will teach.
I would like the cabinet secretary to guarantee today that the teachers who teach the new courses or qualifications in Scottish studies will be properly trained, and that the Scottish studies course will not be staffed by the visiting experts for whom the McCormac review makes way, as it is clear to all how that could be manipulated. That last point is particularly important, because the discursive subjects such as English, history and modern studies that will be included in Scottish studies are intrinsically open to interpretation and should be rigorously impartial.
Will the minister ensure that Scottish studies is taught objectively? Can he assure me that proper emphasis will be placed on debates and arguments in Scottish history? Will we shine a light on the dark days of our past, such as the Highland clearances, the Scottish role in empire and our role in slavery, and challenge the cultural premises of sectarianism? Will the minister give a cast-iron guarantee that those things will be impartially taught and will not support a particular point of view?
We expect the working group to report in January, and we on the Labour side of the chamber will scrutinise its proposals with interest. I ask ministers to ensure the political impartiality of the working group, because a cursory glance at its membership shows many SNP supporters—[Interruption.]
That is a serious point. I would expect the Scottish National Party to be particularly alive to the sensitivities of the make-up of the group that is working on the content of a Scottish studies programme three years before a referendum.
Is Jenny Marra suggesting that people such as the national poet, professors of Scottish history and eminent educationists are somehow part of an unspecified plot to corrupt the minds of Scottish youth?
No—I am not making any such assertion. I am merely underlining my point that impartiality in our education system is a prize that is worth fighting for at all costs. I would expect the learned minister to agree with me on that point.
Internationalism must be preserved, alongside a full appreciation of our own country. I know that Rob Gibson was not suggesting for a minute that the great war should not be taught in our schools, but it should be taught alongside the wars of independence. I was seriously worried when the SNP Government failed to ring-fence the money that the Holocaust Educational Trust won for children—[Interruption]—the point is serious. That money was won for children in every school in the UK to visit Auschwitz. However, the SNP went on to ring-fence funding for school trips to Bannockburn.
I ask the Scottish Government to ensure that we start local and think global and that Scottish studies will not become parochial and inward-looking but will be outward-looking and comparative. It should allow us
“to see oursels as ithers see us”,
which is a touchstone for many Scots.
16:50
It was unworthy of Jenny Marra to make her last remark. On reflection, she will realise that doing so was not sensible. Not only is Dr Allan going on a trip to Auschwitz, but his predecessor went on a trip there, too. The Government has strongly supported the work on national holocaust memorial day and other such interventions. Bringing that issue into the debate was foolish.
The debate has been disappointing. I will start with the things that have not barked. We have heard not a single intervention or speech from the Liberals and we have no Ken Macintosh. Ensuring that Labour’s education spokesperson did not take part was probably sensible. As with pictures of commissars in the old Soviet Union, I suspect that somebody has been at work with a razor blade to cut him out of the family photograph. That is probably why Ed Miliband does not remember who Ken Macintosh is—he has been cut out. Ken Macintosh’s statement in August was ludicrous—to talk about brainwashing was nonsense.
Of course, today’s debate has involved a slight change of tone and thought. That has come from both sides of the usual Conservative-unionist alliance in the Parliament. We have heard an excuse. Those who do not want Scottish studies to happen—it is clear that some members from whom we have heard do not want it to happen—have realised that they cannot oppose it outright. That is because, as we know, the vast majority of Scottish people—citizens of this country—want Scottish studies to take place.
We now have delay, doubt and dissembling, which we have heard all afternoon. The position of Labour and the Tories has remained unchanged from that of Mr Macintosh—it has just got a bit more subtle. That position is well defined in the Scottish novel “Fergus Lamont” by Robin Jenkins, who is probably the greatest Scottish novelist of the 20th century.
In a scene in that novel, the teacher, John Calderwood, is teaching his class the history of the clearances, in a school where teaching Scottish history is forbidden. Unfortunately, he is found out. The headteacher turns up in the classroom and says to him:
“I must warn you. You are filling these children’s minds with poison. You are undermining their confidence in legally constituted authority. It’s a mistake to study the history of one’s own country. It divides us instead of uniting us. Why bother with stuff so out of date?”
Before John Calderwood has the chance to respond, a child from the slums of Gantock—the town in which the novel is set—speaks up. She says:
“It isnae out of date, Mr Maybole. People are still being put oot of their hooses.”
That is the crux of the matter. I am passionate about Scottish studies, because I understand—as Scotland understands—that, to move forward, we need to know who we are and how we came here. That is the topic today. We need to study those matters carefully.
Before I mention some of those things, I will talk about the links and connections that exist in Scotland—about how subject after subject needs to be studied. I will address the spurious point about the experiences and outcomes of curriculum for excellence. The document was published in April 2009. It is the bedrock of curriculum for excellence, but we build on a bedrock. It is a foundation stone. We then ensure that we provide coherence and structure. Scottish studies will provide that coherence and structure to parts of the experiences and outcomes. Those who know anything about education understand that point.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No—I want to make progress. I have heard too much about that issue today. [Interruption.] We have heard sounds from Tory back benchers, too. We have had far too much of what one might call saloon-bar conservatism. We heard that in some interventions, which showed deep hostility to thinking and talking about the present, the past and the future of Scotland, which we need to talk about today.
Let me mention one or two contributions before I speak more generally. Joan McAlpine’s contribution was particularly strong.
I would like to talk about two things in relation to internationalism in Scotland. One is an Egyptian film called “The Night of Counting the Years”, which talks about what it is to relate to tradition. The other came to me from someone who was a great influence on me—Finlay MacLeod, the former assistant director of education in the Western Isles. When I worked for him, he gave me a copy of a novel that was hardly known there but subsequently became a film. The novel was called “The Wife of Martin Guerre”, and he said, “If you read that, you’ll understand what it is to be alienated within your own community. You’ll understand the Gaelic experience.”
Scottish studies is about joining things up. It is about making connections. Let us touch on some of the connections that we have heard about today. Let us touch on the Scottish experience of slavery. Yes, it needs to be taught. The role of Scottish slave traders needs to be taught. And so does something that we did not hear about today—the name Joseph Knight. He was a slave who sought freedom in Scotland and who, from the sheriff of Perth in 1669, heard a commitment of Scottish law—that the state of slavery is not recognised by the laws of this Scottish kingdom. Let us teach that. Let us teach the ambition for human rights in Scotland. While we are doing so, let us go to the Burns centre—much criticised because we encourage children to go there and help them to do so. In the Burns centre, we can see on the wall the last supper—a contemporary last supper.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No, I want to finish this point.
The picture is challenging and engaging. And who does it feature? Yes, it features Robert Burns, but it also features Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, Che Guevara, Shakespeare, Muhammad Ali and Nelson Mandela. It talks about the universality of the humanitarian approach.
Let us talk about education in Scotland and the commitment that existed in Scotland before it existed in any other country in the world to have compulsory education in schools. Let us talk about emigration from Scotland. In my constituency, there is a place called Canada hill, where the families of emigrants watched people who were being forced out of their own country.
Let us talk about Adam Smith and “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”, and about the fact that the Chinese vice-premier, when he visited here earlier this year, had a copy with him, because he carries it everywhere.
Let us talk about the poetry of Pablo Neruda; and let us talk about his reflection on Guernica. And let us talk about the fact that the finest translator of Pablo Neruda is the Scottish poet Alastair Reid.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Let us talk about the Shirley McKie case and about fingerprinting in Scotland. Let us talk about Dr Henry Faulds—[Interruption.]
Will members please settle down a bit?
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was getting slightly overexcited at the thought.
Let us talk about Dr Henry Faulds, to whom there is a plaque in the town of Beith, where he was born. He was the man who invented the modern science of fingerprinting.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No. I am telling you things that you need to know.
Let us talk about the city of Edinburgh. We have already heard about Hutton’s stone, which we can see from here, out of the window. Let us talk about Rock house, on Calton hill, where the world documentary tradition of photography was founded.
Let us talk about the poet Robert Fergusson and about the fact that, from this very chamber, the Nobel prizewinner, Wole Soyinka, walked with me to the statue. We talked about the influence of Scottish poets on the world.
Let us talk socialism—although I know that that is embarrassing for the Labour Party. Let us talk about the injustice that was perpetrated on John Maclean, the first Soviet consul, who was sent to jail by a Scottish judge for five years for opposing a capitalist war. Let us talk trade unionism. A new biography of Robert Smillie, the miners’ champion, was published this very week at the Labour Party conference. Some might think that that was an inappropriate place these days for such a book.
Let us talk about Bonawe, again in my constituency. At the ironworks, there is a monument and a tribute to Nelson and the battle of Trafalgar. Yes, the history of the union is part of the history of this country. That needs to be taught, too.
I could go on for a long time, but I will not.
Members: More!
Thank you, but I will not.
You have 30 seconds.
Let us talk about the need to ensure that we understand who we are and where we came from. Let us show enthusiasm for that, and let us have nothing to do with the delay and the dissembling that we have heard from the united forces of conservatism in this chamber today. [Applause.]
Settle down, members.