Chamber and committees

I congratulate Stuart McMillan on bringing this important debate to the chamber.

There are many arguments for teaching more Scottish history in our schools—as we have heard, its potential to empower young people is chief among them. However, I come at the debate from a particular angle. At the outset, I should say that things are certainly getting better, and give teachers credit for that. However, until very recently, Scots have often learned so little about their own country’s history that the situation could be—and has been—described as profoundly abnormal.

I remember a survey from a few years ago which found that only around half of Scots had, to take one example, ever heard of the declaration of Arbroath. That is not normal. It is not readily possible to imagine a Norway where no one had heard of the Eidsvoll constitution, or a France in which not a soul had heard of the Bastille. Kenneth Gibson’s account of what was not taught in secondary school history, neither to his generation nor to mine, explains a lot.

Why is Scotland such an outlier? Until very recently, the teaching of Scottish history, Scottish literature or Scottish geography has relied almost entirely on the enthusiasm of individual teachers. There was, in the past, simply no official expectation that children and young people in Scotland would need learn anything very much about Scotland.

Perhaps some of the blame for that lies in the way that we have ceased to think of history—both the bits that we like and the bits that make us shudder at ourselves—as a story, yet there is no shortage of stories of either kind in Scotland, from the ancient houses at Skara Brae to the art of the Picts, from the statutes of Iona to the battle of Largs, from James II of Scotland blowing himself up with his own cannon in Roxburgh to the growth of a school in every parish, or in most parishes, to the sorry and financially interlinked stories of the slave trade and the Highland clearances.

Ultimately, we should teach this stuff, not just because it might promote the development of any particular skill or create any particular economic benefit, but because it is interesting and it makes people think. The evidence from schools around Scotland is that young people find it interesting, too, and that it inspires them in all sorts of other areas of the curriculum. We should teach it because, without some of this information, young Scots will find it impossible to locate themselves in Scotland’s story.

I must counter Mr Whitfield. None of that is a case for teaching less world history, so I hope that we will have no more complaints to that effect in the Parliament, condemning school trips to Bannockburn.

Let us get past the anxiety that some people seem to have that teaching young Scots about their country is a political act. It isn’t. However, not teaching them about it—many of us were barely taught about it in secondary school—most certainly is a political act.

In 2011, I faced perhaps the most hostile crowd that I have ever faced in this place when I proposed—successfully—that young Scots doing higher English should have to learn about at least one Scottish writer. That was an idea that a number of members seemed to regard as a sign that the barbarians were not so much at the gates as melting the gates down and making them into weapons of mass destruction.

I believe—I certainly hope that this is the case—that we are getting beyond all the anxiety about teaching about Scotland in schools. It is entirely reasonable for any country to know its history, good and bad, and not to be afraid to do so.

I support the motion.

Yesterday’s welcome announcement will mean that the waters around the Western Isles will contribute substantially to Scotland’s journey to net zero and present vital economic opportunities. What community benefits and supply chain opportunities for the Western Isles can we expect to see from ScotWind, and how will the Government ensure that partners such as the local authority are fully involved?

Returning to the issue of policy coherence and what we all understand that to mean, in the past, many people in the Parliament, the Government and elsewhere have talked about mainstreaming interest and involvement in the work of the Government’s international development department across all parts of Government and the public sector.

Where do you think that we have reached on that agenda, whether on practical issues, such as how we distribute surplus equipment or how we involve different areas of Government in that enterprise, or, more broadly, on awareness in different parts of Government and the public sector of the importance of work in Malawi and elsewhere? I put that question first to David Hope-Jones and then to Lewis Ryder-Jones.

My example about hospital equipment was not meant to cover the breadth of policy coherence, although you make a very fair point. What I am driving at is whether other parts of Government are becoming more aware of the very important issues that you have just mentioned. Is it possible to ensure that those ideas are not completely corralled within your department? That is what I am driving at.

I would like to ask David Hope-Jones how our understanding of climate justice has developed post-COP and post the review of international development policy in Scotland; if you wish, you can answer specifically on Malawi. Lewis Ryder-Jones might want to respond on that issue, too.

Thank you. I am very grateful for that answer.

I have a final, brief question for Ms Merelie. I think that it was you who mentioned the on-going factual context of the particular situation in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that it is not the same situation as Scotland’s, but, if there is an on-going policy intention in Scotland, which appears to be becoming consistent, of keeping pace with European requirements, is there also a factual context that is building up around Scotland that has to be borne in mind?

Lewis Ryder-Jones, do you have any comments to make on that? A few years ago, I had the privilege of being in Malawi on behalf of the Government, and people spoke to me about the issues that David Hope-Jones has just mentioned. They said that they could see the climate and the landscape changing radically and dramatically around them. Although I do not think that anyone expects Scotland on its own to be able to put that right, could you say something specifically about Malawi and what Scotland is working for and doing as far as climate justice issues there are concerned?

This question is directed to Rachel Merelie. I appreciate that you are not a political body and are not making political decisions, so please do not think that I am in any way holding you accountable for this, but how are you, as a body, going to navigate the reality that you are implementing an act that does not enjoy overall political support in Scotland?

Lewis Ryder-Jones, is there anything that you want to say from the Government’s point of view? Can you evidence such activity?

My next question is for Sheila Scobie. Jenni Minto asked about various examples of the kind of things that might come before you for a decision or for you to produce advice and factual information on. You mentioned the concept of a barrier to trade. As Jenni Minto pointed out, that is a contentious concept in a number of areas, not least around the control of alcohol pricing. Quite accurately, you mentioned that all you can do is provide factual advice—it is then up to ministers to make a political decision. Have you any picture of what context or what process UK ministers would use to reach such a decision? Do you have a clear picture of how that process would work at their end?