The full story
You can’t have missed the fact that the BBC is lining up a new series on the history of Britain, to be presented by Simon Schama. He’s a historian, not a TV presenter — he won much acclaim for Citizens, his account of the French Revolution — so that’s a plus for a start. At least, I hope it is. The question is, will it be a history of Britain?
I have never yet picked up any supposed history of Britain which was anything of the sort. Britain, or Great Britain — a term in disfavour although it is not actually a political term at all, but a geographic one — is the island comprised of England, Scotland and Wales. Yet in every so-called history of Britain I have seen, the account is wholly of the history of England (with, sometimes, Wales thrown in as a sort of honorary English county). Until the Union Scotland is treated as a foreign country; after, it becomes a part of the nebulous, occasionally mentioned zone of the North.
Seventy or more years ago, this would have been understandable. England dominated a world-straddling empire, and her most thoroughly subjugated colony was Scotland. No, that is not exaggeration: the Highlands were cleared, civilians murdered, indigenous clothing and practices banned. There was even a move to drop the name “Scotland” and replace it with “North Britain”.
On the other side of the coin, of course, being a junior partner in what became the British Empire, even if forced into that relationship (the Act of Union was passed because England bribed Scottish politicians, and an English army was standing by to invade should the Scottish parliament not pass the Act), gave Scots an unparalleled opportunity to travel the world and find success far from their homeland.
This is not to say that this history should dominate the modern civil life of Scotland or England. If the Act of Union does not give modern England the right in perpetuity to rule Scotland, neither does the oppression of previous centuries weigh guilt on the shoulders of today’s unionist leaders. I am not making any points relating to politics here, well not directly at any rate.
My point is simple: while it was once understandable that the history of Great Britain should be viewed as the history of (southern) England with the rest of the island seen as adnexae of only intermittent interest, it was never anything other than a form of cultural oppression, the dismissal and suppression of Scotland’s long and interesting history. Understandable, then, but hardly justifiable.
This attitude does have a current manifestation which rankles with many Scots (English people don’t seem to grasp why): the current monarch of the United Kingdom has styled herself “Queen Elizabeth II”. There has never been another Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom.
England has had a Queen Elizabeth, of course, the last monarch before the Union of the Crowns brought the Scots James VI to their throne as James I; Scotland has never had a Queen Elizabeth. Adopting the name “Elizabeth II” is a clear statement that, as far as the Establishment is concerned, or was in 1953 anyway, British history is English history, and vice versa.
Now, in an age when Scotland’s Parliament has been partially restored and there is a realistic prospect (or, if your viewpoint is different, threat) of independence, it is neither understandable nor justifiable that historians should continue to relegate Scotland — supposedly England’s partner in the UK — to the margins of history.
Scotland has a rich and fascinating history and literature, but I should not be at all surprised if most English people know the name of no Scottish king before James VI & I other than, possibly, Macbeth.
Most Scots, unhappily, might be in the same boat, although they might well have heard of Robert the Bruce. Mary is more widely known than she would otherwise have been because her fate is so inextricably tied with the history of Elizabeth I of England.
It has been heartening to see the recent appearance of new histories of Scotland, but the history of the nation deserves to be included in the history of Great Britain — we are part of the island, and our history is part of its story. Any book or programme which seeks to tell the story of Britain should include the history of Scotland (and Wales, too); or let’s have honesty and call the works histories of England. Perhaps Simon Schama’s series will do the job properly; I hope so.
© DC 2000. All rights reserved.