Scottish history dissolved into fantasy

June 6, 2014 at 12:23 am (ex-SWP, fantasy, history, Pabs, posted by JD, reactionay "anti-imperialism", scotland)

Above: Bambury talking nationalist shite

The following appeared in The Scotsman:

Book review: A People’s History of Scotland by Chris Bambury (Verso £12.99)

Reviewed by Roger Hutchinson

IF YOU think Scotland has always been left-wing, wake up to the complexities of the past.

A significant element of the Left will vote Yes in September because it believes that, without the hindrance of English Tory votes, a socialist republic will be established in an independent Scotland.

Chris Bambery’s book supports that view. He is a veteran of virtually every Trotskyist body in the UK, from the International Marxist Group to the Socialist Workers Party and now the small splinter International Socialist Group. The word “international” is something of a puzzle, as the Scottish International Socialist Group is nationalist. The “Scottish Workers’ Republic,” he writes, is “a dream we hold in our hearts and minds.”

Do not, then, approach this book expecting to read more of the pussy-footing academic social history which Scotland already has in abundance. Bambery sets out to prove that all of Scotland’s past has led us, with Marxist inevitability, to the day when the red flag will flutter over Holyrood.

A full people’s history must begin with our most distant ancestors. Bambery skips through the post-Ice Age settlers of 11,000 years ago but, the Neolithics not being strong on Gramsci, moves quickly on to the Middle Ages. Although we are promised “a corrective to the usual history of kings and queens, victorious battles and bloody defeats,” when it meets the agenda, as in the Scottish wars of independence, the civil war and the Jacobite risings, this book positively bubbles with kings and queens and gory battles.

Twenty-three pages into his book, Bambery recommends the Holywood movie Braveheart as giving “a good account of [William] Wallace’s life.” That statement should disillusion even the sympathetic reader. The day we defer to Mel Gibson’s version of our past is the day Scottish history dissolves into fantasy.

It is a shame, because there is much of interest here. There is a predictable account of the events leading up to the Treaty of Union in 1707, which was not of course a democratic decision as democracy didn’t exist then. But the plausible analysis that Scottish negotiators – who were representing a bankrupt country – drove a hard bargain through the treaty and that Scotland consequently benefited more from the Union than did England, merits not so much as a nod.

The Enlightenment and the Jacobite risings pose a problem to left-wing nationalists. Bambery flunks the first and passes the second. The Enlightenment flourished in Scotland immediately after the Union. It may have done so anyway – David Hume and Adam Smith would still have been born and educated in an independent Scotland. It is nonetheless difficult to ignore the possibility that the Lowland Enlightenment was kick-started by a fresh and invigorating free association with like minds from the rest of Britain.

No more, if he is writing a people’s history, can a responsible historian avoid the unsavoury connection between the Enlightenment and what Chris Bambery calls “the darkest chapter in Scottish history”, the Highland Clearances. The clearances were a straightforward response from Scottish landowners to Lowland Enlightenment theories of improvement and scorn for tribal responsibilities.

The bulk of this book deals with labour unrest since the 19th century. The growth of trade unionism and the discovery of a political voice in the industrial proletariat is powerful and stirring material. In telling the stories of the ordinary footsoldiers in the Radical War of 1820, of the cotton spinners’ strike of 1837 and of the miners’ struggles from 1840 to 1984, in describing the lives of such as Mary Brooksbank and James Connolly, Bambery offers a Scottish version of EP Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class.

It is almost a parallel history for, as Bambery says, there was solidarity between workers north and south of the Tweed. The oppressive forces facing cotton weavers in Glasgow were identical to those confronting their equivalents in Lancashire. Coalminers in Fife and Durham had shared conditions, shared aspirations and in some cases the same employers. None of them had much in common with the land wars of the Highland Gaels.

Bambery argues that the desire for separation was a natural reaction to Thatcherism. This isn’t an original thesis, but it carries some water. Scotland’s Tories might not have disappeared, but most of them no longer vote Conservative.

He acknowledges, however vaguely, that his thesis has a counterpoint. It is that in 1979 Margaret Thatcher became prime minister of a Scotland which had, just 20 years earlier, been a Conservative country.

In three consecutive general elections between 1951 and 1959 most of the north of England and Wales and much of London was vainly attempting to re-elect the Labour government which had. a few years earlier, delivered the welfare state and the NHS.

In the same three elections Scots, in unison with the Home Counties of England, gave more votes to the Tories than to any other party and ensured the premierships of Churchill, Eden and Macmillan – and the continuing presence of Margaret Thatcher as a young MP in the governing party.

Presumably because it throws a nasty curve ball at his theory of Scotland as an intrinsically left-wing society on a millennial march to a workers’ republic, Bambery summarises the Scottish politics of this decade as “incredible”. That is not good enough. Other historians accustomed to exploring and analysing such patterns might wonder, who cannot credit it, and why?

History falls neatly into nobody’s political agenda. Nor, most of the time, does the future.

H/t: Dale Street (who comments: “‘A People’s History of Scotland’ appears to be on a par with a book Bambury once wrote about Ireland, which was so badly written and edited that it was impossible to distinguish the factual inaccuracies from the typing mistakes.”)


  1. Jim Denham said,

  2. Scottish history dissolved into fantasy | OzHouse said,

    […] Jun 06 2014 by admin […]

  3. Rosie said,

    Since Obama said he’d prefer the UK stay united, the Better Together campaign is now officially known as “the American-backed so-called Better Together campaign.”

    Interesting piece, Jim. I can’t be bothered wading through videos of bad history, so am glad of the synopsis.

  4. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    Whilst my gut feeling is in line with the anti-nationalist views expressed here by my former comrade Pat Murphy the other day, I don’t think any non-Scottish revolutionary socialists can ignore the overwhelming support for independence by our comrades north of the border.

    I think it is arrogant to think that this collective wisdom of Scottish Lefts – i.e. those obviously with best knowledge – can be less wise that that of those not there and who argue against independence.

    • Jim Denham said,

      In other words, give up the attempt to reach any kind of objective view or opinion …


      (especially from someone who claims to be a ‘Marxist’)!

      • Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

        Rather pathetic than deluded.

        The trouble with Trots is that they think they can work everything out. But as my late mother used to say to me (and should have said to them), ‘If you are so clever, why aren’t you rich?’

        The fact that things rarely go our way should make us better acknowledge our very feeble analytical powers. It is far better to be honest and say, ‘I’m not sure about this’, than feel you have to know how to work everything out.

        A prime current example of this is the Trots who will give you chapter and verse – and down to arguing about the commas – about the Ukraine, but with not a word of Ukrainian between them. I feel a lot more confident with my view that’ I’m not sure, it’s very complex’.

        The alternative ‘Marxist’ (sic) route eventually gets you into the territory of Alan Woods from Socialist Appeal who thinks he can use his Marxist analysis to predict how late the next number 11 bus will be. Buy a copy of his paper, stuff it down the settee and then read it a year later. You will laugh out loud at all the ‘cast-iron’ predictions he has made but that did not pan out.

        I’m happy to admit my ignorance. And I reckon that put me streets ahead intellectually of the Marxist analysts who should really be using their skills instead for Old Moore’s Almanac. Know your limitations.

        So Scotland: I think the Scots far lefts are wrong but I will defer to their local knowledge and the collective wisdom of a few hundred of them versus one of me. And I might also be wrong.

      • Jim Denham said,

        Southpaw: “I’m happy to admit my ignorance.”:

        Good. That’s a start.

  5. februarycallendar said,

    For me this is largely a battle between Lefts. If Scotland is more Left-wing, it is so in the “during and after WW2” sense not the souixante-huitard sense of this blog, which never really took off there like it did in England, so this is more a turf war than anything else.

    (Also: “overwhelming support for independence”? Do you mean among the Scottish far-left or the general population there? A lot could still happen before September, but no poll has yet suggested that a Yes vote would be a cakewalk.)

  6. Peter said,

    Was at the CCA launch of the book last Thursday in Glasgow. 20 people there-almost all pro-Independence. Chris B’s response to orthodox arguments about not dividing the trade union movement , rank and file organising within the unions, the far-left taking industrial work more seriously was to say that separation would be a progressive example for the English working class to follow and that Unite had switched from being against Independence to being neutral. Have only read up to the beginning of the Reformation so will reserve judgment on the book, but it is clearly trying to use History to make a case for Separation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: