2007 - 2021

Large Scale Solidarity

7297679366_192d774b46_hAfter a period of rabid anti-gaelic publishing, we explore this extract from Closer as way of a response.

One jarring conversation in a Highland town this summer led me to reflect on the nature of a Scottish national identity and on what would constitute a just sovereign order in an independent – or, indeed, non-independent – Scotland.

I was speaking with a Glaswegian who had lived in the town for nearly half a century and become a prominent citizen there. When we spoke about language he told me that Gaelic is “superfluous”; it is not a modern language and is useless. He felt it was better for children to learn French and German in primary school, but maybe those who wanted could learn Gaelic in secondary school.

He said he had worked with islandmen who didn’t know how to sign their names, implying that Gaelic had made them ignorant. However, he added: “It wasn’t their fault – I looked after them.”

When it came to crofters, he told me: “They’re lazy. Nobody keeps cattle anymore. There’s no crofters. Throwing a few sheep on the hill – that’s not crofting.”

Each time I asked about the structural conditions in which crofting and Gaelic were declining he responded with what to me was invective, concluding: “People say that if you are anti-Gaelic you are anti-Scottish, but that’s not true.”

It brought to mind another uncomfortable conversation, this one with a lady from Edinburgh a few years ago. She was criticising the fact that there was a Gaelic-medium-unit at a school in the cit, asking: “Why are they forcing our young people to learn Gaelic?” (The answer is that ‘they’ are not.)

The man’s claim that one can be anti-Gaelic without being anti-Scottish reminded me of the lady’s use of the language of ‘them’ and ‘us’.

In debating the consequences of independence, Bella Caledonia has not shied away from the difficult issue of Scottish identities, repeatedly posting articles which are superficially about the Gaelic language but which, in fact, draw out some of the assumptions and prejudices that come with our messy cultural inheritance. During the commentary on an article discussing the absence of Gaelic from the referendum debate one poster appeared to want to close the whole topic down because it was, they claimed, anti-independence.

However, another poster, called ‘mrbfaethedee’, outlined why he felt that many people seemed to be struggling with the issues that the article had raised:

large numbers of Scots don’t see gaelic as being as particularly relevant to them while the gaelic community obviously and rightly do…Sitting here in Dundee I don’t feel that gaelic makes up a great deal of my ‘culture’, and that its depth and infuence over on the east coast is grossly overstated, historically as well as currently.
So when it’s touted as Scotland’s true language and culture by others, it simply ignores the fact that we’ve been ‘mulit-cultural’ for a long time, and the lingua franca has long since moved on.

On the same thread Stewart Ingleby had posted:

As a lowlander I could actually get equally angry about the whitewashing of my own cultural history with the arrogant and inaccurate assertion that gaelic is the universal native language of Scotland.

Here, Ingleby argues that assertions about the Gaelic language are being used to present Scotland as having one culture. His argument represents a concern that this universalising cultural force could wipe out the ‘cultural history’ of the Lowlands to which he belongs. It is possible, I think, that he can be understood as invoking a kind of Lowland nationalism – this is what the claim of a ‘cultural history’ for a people (‘lowlanders’) in a territory amounts to.

From a different Scottish perspective, the Hebridean scholar Dr. John MacInnes has written in nationalistic terms of the historical experiences of the Gàidheal in Scotland, concluding that “during the last two and a half centuries processes of decline have produced what can only now be regarded as the detritus of a nation”. Yet while the historical decline of the Gàidheal as a nation is real enough, in his important recent book ‘Voicing Scotland – folk, culture, tradition’ Dr. Gary West of the School of Scottish Studies can still contrast the singers of what he calls ‘Gaeldom’ with the singers of ‘Scotland’.

If we think of a nation as being what the 19th century French philosopher Ernest Renan called “a large scale solidarity” formed fom a “rich legacy of memories” held in common, then I would argue that the examples above demonstrate that a notion of Scottish nationhood is not straightforward.

Renan famously wrote that “a nation is a soul, a spiritual principle”. He added:

Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form.

In these terms, the soul of Scotland is doubly divided. It is divided not only in terms of the debate on how we consent to live together in the present. This is the independence debate; a debate on political ‘issues’.

No, the soul of Scotland is also divided at its ‘origins’: there are radically different senses of what being Scottish means, and these differences have reached the present from far, far back in our messy, long-contested past. Whereas one stream of national memory might recall the dates of 1603 and 1707 as the years when a sovereignty was lost, another stream might invoke the years 1266 and 1493 to the same end.

In our past and in our present these mighty streams of cultural memory divide us, and when a sovereign Scotland is being collectively imagined the assumptions and prejudices carried in each stream can meet and clash, creating division and anger.

It might help us to understand and come to terms with these powerful feelings of division and anger if we consider the possibility that Scotland is more than one nation; that is, if we begin to think of Scotland as a multinational society as well as a multicultural one.

According to the Canadian political philosopher James Tully, a multinational society is one “that includes more than one ‘nation’, or, more accurately, more than one ‘member’ of the society demands recognition as a nation or nations”. This recognition includes a right to self-governance.

Tully describes Canada as a multinational society on the basis of the claims being made by the government of the province of Quebec and by Aboriginal peoples to be recognised as nations. The same argument has been made for the present United Kingdom on the basis of the claims being made by the four nations that constitute it.

However, Tully points out that within Quebec itself there are 11 Aboriginal peoples demanding recognition as First Nations. He concludes: “A member of a multinational society that demands recognition as a nation may itself be a multinational society”.

In this regard it may be telling that the Scottish islands, the areas most closely associated with ‘Gaelic’ and ‘Nordic’ Scotland’, have already sought and, through the Lerwick Declaration, won the promise of greater powers in an independent Scotland.

In announcing the SNP’s commitment to self-determination within Scotland, Alex Salmond said:

We believe that the people who live and work in Scotland are best placed to make decisions about our future – the essence of self-determination, therefore we support subsidiarity and local decision making. It follows, therefore, that any government committed to that policy should listen to the views expressed across all of Scotland – as we are doing here in Lerwick.

In this article I have suggested that the territory of Scotland contains a multiplicity of nations. If this is the case, and if it is the case that these fundamentally different senses of the Scottish ‘nation’ can lead to divisiveness and anger when each claims ‘Scotland’ as its own, then it seems to me that this principle of self-governance should be applicable beyond the basis of localities within a homogenous Scottish nation.

The principle of Scottish self-determination should also recognise the deep diversity of Scotland’s cultural histories and in doing so seek to respect and to nurture the multicultural and multinational nature of Scottish identities. Then we might be able to acknowledge ‘us’ and ‘them’ without being anti-anyone.


We really need your support to develop and we’d like to ask you to support us by donating to us here.

We’ve got big plans to launch our new site, to launch new publishing and events projects, and to extend our platform of writers – but all of this needs your support.

Bella Caledonia remains free (and ad-free) and takes me hundreds of hours a month to research, write, commission and edit. If you value what I do, please consider supporting with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing. GoCardless to set up a small monthly donation to support independent journalism in Scotland.


Go here to subscribe for free and get each Bella article sent to your email
Go here to follow us on Twitter @bellacaledonia
Go here to follow us on Instagram
Go here to join our Facebook Group
Go here to follow us on Spotify
Go here to write for us

Comments (16)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Rhona says:

    An interesting article, but I’m a wee bit unclear as to the conclusion. MacKinnon writes,

    “it seems to me that this principle of self-governance [as is being discussed for the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland] should be applicable beyond the basis of localities within a homogenous Scottish nation.”

    What exactly is being advocated here? Any clarification gratefully received 🙂

    1. Iain MacKinnon says:

      Hello Rhona,

      Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been travelling over the last week with limited internet access. There is nothing precise being advocated in my conclusion. In writing this article I was seeking a space to think about and discuss the place of the Gàidheal in contemporary Scotland. As a Gàidheal, I think this is a discussion which matters whether or not Scotland becomes independent next year. I’ve come to understand that being a Gàidheal – and the ancestral and cultural inheritance that comes with being Gàidheal – influences me, and indeed defines me, as a person in so many ways. I feel this is also true for many of the people that I care for and love.

      Although being Gàidheal is, I believe, generative of strengths that we carry as a people, for many of us the recognition of being Gàidheal also contributes to senses of weakness, vulnerability and even inferiority – for me this is part of the meaning of the words of John MacInnes that I quoted in the article. I believe that these feelings and their consequences are at the heart of many of the challenges that we face personally and as a people (why, for instance, does the Western Isles have a rate of alcoholism as high as the most deprived post-industrial areas of Glasgow?).

      For me, a discussion of the idea of Gàidheal nationhood and self-determination needs to begin with some fundamental and uncomfortable questions such as: Do we still exist?; if so, who are we today and how do we recognise ourselves?; what do and can we contribute?; if we are to contribute what responsibilities must we take on, and what rights should be attached to those responsibilities?

      The first of these questions of identity is particularly uncomfortable but, for me, that question, and the two that follow from it, are deeply political questions as well as being personal and cultural. I say this because I am, in part, asking them while thinking of how identities are officially established in Scotland so that they can be seen by the eyes of Scottish governance systems. The primary means by which this is achieved is through ‘Scotland’s census’ which is a political tool that exists to provide the Government with information on the Scottish population that helps them to create policies and to plan and run public services.

      The Government explains the census like this:

      “It asks the same questions of us all and in doing so builds a reliable picture of Scotland as a whole, as well as for groups of people and local communities within it. If the census misses anyone, you or someone you know could lose out, that is why it is so important that everyone participates in completing the census.”

      While the 2001 and 2011 censuses contained a question on whether a person can speak Gaelic or not, the Gàidheal do not hold the status of an ethnic group in the land where we have lived since time immemorial. Under the ethnic identifiers in the 2001 census one may be: white Scottish; other white British; white Irish; other white; Indian; Pakistani; Bangladeshi; other South Asian; Caribbean; African; Black Scottish or other Black; mixed background; or ‘other ethnic group’

      In the eyes of the state the Gàidheal do not exist. I am not able to identify myself in terms of the wider identity that I believe myself to belong to. Instead I need to describe myself as one of Scotland’s ‘others’. If the census is “a reliable picture of Scotland as a whole” it seems there is no place for us here; it “misses” us and we are “losing out”. For me, this larger principle of self-determination – which, as I say, goes beyond rights that might be attached to localities within a homogenous Scottish nation – is a means by which the present invisibility of the Gàidheal (and others) in political systems can be rectified. But before any such principle can be enacted the Gàidheal need, as the poet and scholar Donald MacAulay has put it, to understand the nature and meaning of our condition within contemporary Scotland. Primarily, it is this discussion that I am advocating through this article.

      1. Rhona says:

        Mòran taing son fregairt a sgrìobhadh dhomh. Tha mi a’ tuigsinn na tha thu ag ràdh mu fèin-aithne cugallach nan Gàidheal. Dhomhsa, ‘s e leum mòr a th’ ann o fèin-aithneachadh, rud a tha car pearsanta, gu fèin-riaghladh, rud a tha car oifigeil – mar sin, chan robh mi buileach cinnteach ciamar a bha an dà rud ceangailte. Bhiodh e inntinneach barrachd a clhuinntinn ma dheidhinn. Cuimidh mi sùil air Bella son alt eile bhuat. Taing a-rithist.

  2. Abulhaq says:

    Is Scotland a nation? or is Scotland a nation in formation. I incline to the latter. At the time when nations, in the modern nation-state concept, were being formed we so “antisyzygically” nipped the thing in the bud by uniting with England. What were those guys thinking? As a people we are not homogeneous. There is variety within our current borders that has been white-washed over by the lethal fiction of (North) Britishness. We are Gaels, we are Lallan Scots, we are Orkney and Shetland islanders, we are Catholics and Protestants, Muslims, Sikhs and Jews, Italiani and Polski, sceptics and “brights”, a very interesting raw material from which to fashion a mutually tolerant nation. All we need is a pinch, or two, of mutual toleration. The Scot of the future will be different from the Scot of the present, thank whoever!

  3. Andrew Moron says:

    I think the explanation for the attitudes of which you write is that England has kept Scotland under the thumb since the time of Edward I by fostering divisions within Scottish society. Those who wish to see Scotland regain its independence (for it is not a new nation despite the propaganda which is being drip fed to us via the media and politicians) are (with some justification) suspicious of attempts to highlight or create divisions in society, cultural or otherwise. Westminster’s continual attempts to create a Free Shetland movement being a case in point.

    Let us regain our independence and then discuss these important matters at our leisure.

    1. Iain MacKinnon says:

      Another historical perspective would be to consider the 13th century ‘Wars of Independence’ as a post-conquest turf war among the squabbling colonials of which Edward I and Robert de Brus were two. From this perspective Scottish independence was lost at a nameless battle in 1097 when a Frankish, or Anglo-Norman, army led up from England by Edgar son of Malcolm Canmore, defeated a Scottish army led by Malcolm Canmore’s brother Donald ‘Ban’ and imposed on Scotland primogeniture and the culturally anglicised dynasty of St. Margaret, granddaughter of the king of England. Indeed, the former historiographer royal Gordon Donaldson described this battle as “the Scottish Hastings”.

  4. picpac67 says:

    Time to think of Switzerland again – four national languages, 26 cantons, each with its own constitution, a ‘government’ of 7 people from four different political parties, variable tax regimes, and with deeply entrenched popular direct-democratic rights at local, cantonal and national levels.
    Think also of how Switzerland resolved the ‘Jura issue’ peacefully and democratically. I was recently in a French-speaking village in the north-western corner of Switzerland. It feels more like part of France than Switzerland, yet it’s less than an hour from German-speaking Basle. And of course people move easily between languages – almost everyone speaks at least two of the national languages, plus English.
    The differences are accepted – and acknowledged as contributing to Swiss culture and creativity. Vive les différences! It works and it’s much richer than some bland homogeneous ‘single-nation’ culture.

  5. Neil McRae says:

    “The principle of Scottish self-determination should also recognise the deep diversity of Scotland’s cultural histories and in doing so seek to respect and to nurture the multicultural and multinational nature of Scottish identities.”

    I think it’s happening already, the country is so much more diverse, and aware of that diversity and on the whole comfortable with it, than it was thirty or even twenty years ago. The outpourings of a few cranks will not change this!


    Murdo Macdonald
    Professor of History of Scottish Art, University of Dundee, Scotland.

    • NOTE: This text has its origin in a conference paper Is there a British Art? Delivered at a conference of the same name at the Tate Gallery, London (now Tate Britain) on 3 April, 1996. It was subsequently developed as a chapter in Glenda Norquay and Gerry Smyth, eds., (2002) Across the margins: Cultural Identity and Change in the Atlantic Archipelago, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Nationality and Art

    The relationship between nationality and art, or something like it, has been central to the of the history of art – scholarly or popular – whether in the minimal form of this national school or that national school, or in a more focused way as in “the Italian Renaissance” or “French Impressionism”. The art in question is seen as directly related to a national or quasi-national set of circumstances, and, indeed the art is seen as having some significant link to the nationality of those who carried it out.

    A question that tends to be begged in such approaches is: what is nationality? It seems to be assumed that words like Scottish, French, English, etc. do not require any particular analysis before one tacks them on to some body of work. This approach to nationality is often convenient but a little more must be said about the idea of a nation, for it is an easily misunderstood thing. The most common misunderstanding is that a nation is simply a culturally homogeneous group of people who share certain attitudes, traditions and habits due to long historical association within a geographical area. This idea of the nation as depending on some sort of cultural homogeneity is a strongly propagated one, not least by governments in time of war. Yet in fact, nations are intrinsically heterogeneous, and such diversity, far from being a threat to a national identity is a necessary characteristic of it. Cultural diversity is one of the things that defines a nation. Nations are identifiable as meaningful cultural units as a result of their internal cultural diversity, not as a result of an internal homogeneity. Perhaps my view here is coloured by my own experience as a Scot, for in Scotland it is very obviously impossible to make any meaningful claim of cultural homogeneity. For example, for many hundreds of years there have been three languages spoken and two of these – what is now called Scots and what is now called Gaelic – have been spoken in some form in Scotland for at least a millennium, while the third – what is now called English – has been in wide use since the seventeenth century.

    Thus, even when considered without reference to twentieth century immigration from Europe and the British Empire, Scotland has historically and presently an overtly diverse cultural identity. Regardless of what language or languages are spoken at present, most Scots are aware of the linguistic diversity of their own backgrounds. A working class woman from a post-industrial Ayrshire steel town whose first language is Scots may share with a middle class man born in Edinburgh whose first language is English, the fact that each has a great-grandparent who was a native Gaelic speaker. This shows the degree of threat to that particular language, but it also shows how small the historical distance to Gaelic culture is among many people who might be thought to have no link to it whatever. This is the context for the present widespread support for Gaelic studies across Scotland, and the related interest in the products of that culture which range from the Book of Kells (c. 800) to the art of Will Maclean (b.1941). This support is thus engaged rather than nostalgic.

    An interesting example of the cultural diversity which characterises Scotland is the “division” between Highland Gaelic culture and Lowland Scots culture. This is very often seen as a site of conflict rather than unity in Scotland, and certainly on occasion it has been. Yet it can be recalled that it was the unity of Highland and Lowland that assured Bruce victory at Bannockburn in the fourteenth century and thus asserted Scottish independence after three hundred years of varied incursions from south of the Border. The point is that Bannockburn far from asserting the nation as culturally homogeneous asserted national independence as dependent on cultural diversity. Similarly, and moving on over four hundred years, although the Battle of Culloden is normally stereotyped as a Highland versus Lowland clash in fact – as Murray Pittock has pointed out – Jacobites were drawn from both Highlands and Lowlands in substantial numbers, as were Hanoverian supporters. So again what characterised both sides in this struggle was diversity not homogeneity. Although very obvious, these points have to made because the stereotype of nations as homogeneous unities is so prevalent and yet so wrong, and one cannot start any useful study of how a nation relates to art, literature or whatever, without understanding that it is an intrinsically diverse thing.

    But surely a nation has some cultural uniqueness? If so what can this be if a nation lacks what would at first sight seem to be the key, namely homogeneity? The answer to this is quite simple. A nation’s uniqueness, its national quality if you like, derives from the fact that the combination of cultural aspects which make it up is indeed unique (if not in principle, at least in practice). One can note that these cultural aspects themselves might be unique but are much more likely to be shared with other nations. For example Scotland shares many cultural aspects with Ireland, many others with England, many others with Norway, many others with France, many others with the Netherlands. But the way these aspects combine in Scotland is unique to Scotland, and is mediated and transformed by further aspects such as geography. A nation is thus somewhat like a person. Each person shares a great deal with others, but in practice personalities – like nations – are unique. But this uniqueness claim is an assertion of a unique diversity, not an insistence on a unique homogeneity.

    Stereotypes and Scottish Art

    By applying this idea of diversity to a particular area of activity such as art, one can see that it is only by appreciating an interplay of different currents that one can appreciate the Scottishness of Scottish art. While one can give some of these traditions names like classicism and Celticism, the first thing to note about such an approach is that the Scottishness of Scottish art is a consequence of the combinations involved, not merely a matter of content. This is an obvious point but it illuminates the inadequacy of the view that a painting can be thought of as Scottish only if it has an overtly Scottish content, or that architecture can be thought of as distinctively Scottish only if it makes some kind of Scots-Baronial reference. Such impoverished ideas of ‘national art’ as by definition stereotyped and inward looking are odd to say the least. They have, however, bedevilled the perception of Scottish art. Such stereotyping is a method of concealing cultural realities, but at the same time creating a powerful imagery which seems to reflect that culture. What is wrong with stereotypes is not that they exist (indeed they normally correspond to some aspect of reality), but that they are selective and inflexible, that is to say they fail to reflect the plural nature of any culture. A particularly interesting example of stereotyping with respect to Scottish art is the over-use of the painting by Sir Henry Raeburn of Colonel Alastair Macdonell of Glengarry. This is one of the images that has stood in for the wider body of Scottish art for many years. It is an interesting picture in its own right, but one rarely has the opportunity to consider it as such. Usually it is simply used as a stereotypical shorthand for the idea of Scottish art, for example as a cover illustration. It was used in this way for Sir James Caw’s guide to the National Gallery of Scotland published in 1927. Again one finds it used for the cover of the book accompanying the exhibition, Scotland’s Pictures published by the National Galleries of Scotland in 1990. Well-written and well-illustrated, this latter book contained over a hundred full colour illustrations. Perhaps three or four of these showed a person dressed in tartan. And yet the work taken to be representative of Scottish painting for the cover was one of those tartan images. I have nothing against tartan, but such a choice of cover image opens the way for a stereotype to dominate a tradition of art. Journalists talk about ‘putting a kilt on an issue’ when giving it a Scottish perspective. Here we see this literally in the case of Scottish art. The cover invites us to find Scottish art, if we can, within the stereotype, when we should really be doing the reverse, exploring stereotypical imagery within the broader context of Scottish art.

    That relationship between cover and book is a metaphor for the relationship between stereotype and reality in Scottish culture. Scotland’s Paintings reflected with considerable insight the real history of Scottish painting, but the cover subsumed that reality within a stereotype. As one might expect such stereotyping is just as evident in guidebooks. A particularly good example is the Jarrold Regional Guide, Art in Scotland published in 1980. Despite being a seriously written guide, its front cover illustration is The Monarch of the Glen by Landseer. Here that other stereotype of Scotland, the red deer in a deserted landscape, is employed. The fact that the landscape may be deserted because it has been cleared of people in favour of sporting interests, is not part of the painting’s message. Because Landseer is an English artist the use of The Monarch of the Glen might seem to give the additional message that Scottish art is so unthinkable as to be not even worth reproducing on the cover. But the key issue is stereotyping, not the nationality of the artist. A Scottish work by the German artist Joseph Beuys or by the English artist John Latham would have challenged the stereotype nicely, but despite the fact that one could argue that Joseph Beuys has just as much relevance to Scotland as does Edwin Landseer, such approaches are notable by their absence in literature relating to Scottish art. One suspects that work by the English painter J.M.W. Turner of Scottish subjects is largely neglected because it does not conform to the antlers and tartan stereotype. To consider Turner’s work as appropriate to the representation of Scotland would be to threaten the stereotype. Displacing the Monarch of the Glen in favour of such thoughtful explorations of topography and culture would risk forcing consideration of images of Scotland into the range of the modern and the thinkable.

    Scottish Art and the English Model
    It is equally interesting to consider how a Scottish artist or architect is considered when no stereotypical interpretation can be put on their work. For example Nicolaus Pevsner in his book The Englishness of English Art (1956) seems determined to either ignore or appropriate Scottish work to ‘Englishness’ as need be. He considers it necessary for his argument that Robert Adam be assimilated into his idea of Englishness. But he knows that Adam is a Scot so he suggests that for the purposes of his book in the case of Adam: “no distinction can be made between Scottish and English qualities.” That’s convenient but not entirely convincing. Perhaps the real point that underlies Pevsner’s argument is not so much that there is no distinction between Adam’s Scottish and English qualities (whatever they may be) but that in much of his work he is developing a classical tradition shared throughout Europe. So Pevsner’s underlying argument seems to be that because of Adam’s Europeanness one can ignore his Scottishness and appropriate him as part of the Englishness of English art. But, of course, if one looks more closely at what was interesting to Scots at the time of Adam – both within Scotland and abroad – it was indeed the classical tradition not just in architecture but in all fields, not least mathematics and philosophy. The fact that most of the philosophers who could be called British at that time were Scottish (or, in the case of Berkeley, Irish) simply underlines this fact. One could argue just as Pevsner does for Adam’s architecture that “no distinction can be made between Scottish and English qualities” in Hume’s philosophy. But – even if one held that position – it would be prudent to take note of the fact that during the period of the Scottish Enlightenment there was a great deal of philosophy of consequence written in Scotland and at the same time a distinct lull in the contribution to philosophy from England. The point here is that both Adam and Hume were part of this Scottish intellectual culture. It is no coincidence that the pioneer of European neo-classical painting in the time of Adam and of Hume was another Scot, Gavin Hamilton.

    Must this mean that Adam, by virtue of being part of a Scottish intelligentsia (which Pevsner does not so much deny as side-step), cannot be part of the English tradition? Well no, it doesn’t mean that, but the point is that Adam is part of the English tradition in the same way as Hume is part of it, or Berkeley is part of it, or indeed Nikolaus Pevsner himself or, for that matter, Wittgenstein is part of it. He is not part of the English tradition in the same way as, for example, Wren or Hawksmoor or Locke or Newton is part of the English tradition. Adam may be an influential part of that tradition, but he does not himself find his origins within it, and that is the distinction which must be made if one is to understand the manner in which the Scottish and English traditions co-exist. At least in the case of Adam, Pevsner acknowledges his Scottishness, even if he claims it doesn’t matter for his argument. By comparison one finds Pevsner absorbing Colen Campbell fully into the English tradition without further comment, although the comment that he does make, makes clear that he pioneered Palladianism in England in the early eighteenth century. He is thus presented – by default – as an architect entirely in the English tradition, which conflicts with the fact that – in a British context – he first helped to pioneer Palladianism not in England but in Scotland along with William Bruce and James Smith. He did, of course, then work in England and there is no doubt that he considered himself part of the English tradition, but the fact that he was a Scottish architect does at least seem worth acknowledging. But to do so would threaten Pevsner’s intriguing justification of “English” Palladianism. He begins by noting that a “connexion between the middle class as a carrier of rationalism and the Palladian style in England seems less convincing at first” but he then goes on to imply that rationalism and reasonableness are the same thing and that the English have always been characterised by reasonableness so therefore the rationalism of the Palladian approach makes sense with respect to the Englishness of English art. Any Scot, or any Italian or any Frenchman could have told Pevsner (as he could, no doubt, on reflection have told himself) that the rationalism of Palladianism is concerned with returning to first principles of proportion, that is to say it is a radical architectural doctrine which if one were to transpose it to society would be more likely to herald revolution than the middle-class reasonableness Pevsner attempts to associate it with. The Scottish artist Ian Hamilton Finlay puts it this way: “In the foreground of every revolution, invisible, it seems, to the academics, stands a perfect classical column.” One might argue against this that this return to first principles could as easily take one to a consideration of balance within society rather than revolution. Again, however, this cannot be associated with the reasonableness Pevsner invokes for this is clearly concerned with pragmatic compromise rather than a rational scheme of social organisation. One can note that this reflects the difference in principle between English and Scots law, the former based on custom and convention, the latter closer in its origins to the legal rationalizations of ancient Rome.

    With respect to art and architecture, Pevsner’s view seems to parallel that held by T.S. Eliot with respect to literature. In Cairns Craig’s words, Eliot identifies the fact that “the real function of Scottish, Irish and Welsh writers is to contribute, not to their own culture, which will not have ‘a direct impact on the world’, but towards the tradition of English literature.” Craig has described this phenomenon as a state of being “out of history”. Arguments against Scottish independence are often couched in similar language. If Scotland were separated from England, Scotland would no longer be able to have a direct impact on the world, due to the loss of the association with the greater power of the sister nation. Militarily this is no doubt true, but few Scots would mourn Trident. Culturally the fact that the British literary establishment never thought of Sorley MacLean as a writer who merited backing for the Noble prize for literature, puts a different complexion on such arguments.

    The Englishness of British Art
    The problem of the mislaying of cultural identity when Scottish material is diffused into an English model, has been illustrated. The problem is exacerbated when ostensibly ‘British’ models are used.

    In 1996 a series of programmes entitled A History of British Art was shown by the British Broadcasting Corporation. This series, both British in its title and British in its commissioning body, provides an interesting example of the problematic use of the word ‘British’ with respect to Scottish culture. Consider the following: in the introduction to the book which accompanied the series (reprinted in 1999 as a handsome large-format paperback), the author writes of his disappointment with the negative attitudes expressed in an earlier book called Art in England, published in 1938 and goes on to say that this approach ‘seemed to sum up the spirit in which the British have historically treated British art.’ Already, only a few paragraphs in to the book, Britain and England risk being conflated. In the introduction he mentions three books – two in his view bad, one good. Along with the one already noted these books are The Englishness of English Art, and England’s Iconoclasts. Thus, the key examples for defining attitudes to British art, positive or negative, are primarily concerned with English art. Linked to this he notes that the negative views expressed about English art in the works he refers to are mirrored elsewhere in Britain. Writing, as I am, from a Scottish perspective, this is very confusing. For example in 1938 – the same year that the first book on English art referred to was published – John Tonge’s book on Scottish art was published to accompany a major exhibition at the Royal Academy in London. That book can hardly be considered a negative view of Scottish art. Furthermore, three other histories of Scottish art were written between that date and 1956, when the other book on English art which is criticised, ironically enough in the light of my argument above, Pevsner’s The Englishness of English Art, was published. Reading this introduction it is as though such publications about Scottish art had never happened, let alone the publication of full-length histories of Scottish painting in 1889, 1906 and 1908, not to mention the numerous works published since 1956. These works are all devoted to giving Scottish art its due and – while each author has different enthusiasms and opinions – can hardly be thought of as reflecting ‘an air of abjectness and a consciousness of failure’ to quote again from ¬A History of British Art. Indeed as early as 1889 Robert Brydall was referring to Scottish art’s ‘pre-eminence.’ In the light of the international recognition of the painters of the Glasgow School of painters in the 1880s one can see what he meant, but the point here is not to defend Brydall’s statement but simply to note that it seems to belong to a different discourse from A History of British Art. That can be summed up by noting that out of well over two hundred works discussed in these programmes, less than three percent were by Scottish artists. Yet despite this emphasis on England the notion of ‘abjectness and consciousness of failure’ is extended explicitly to ‘Britain as a whole’. Although there is clear interest in this series in work from outside England, it is clear very early on that the paradigm of Britishness that is adopted is Englishness.

    Note that these criticisms of A History of British Art stem from one word in the title. The programmes were interesting in their own right, they just were not about British art, unless one is prepared to accept that ‘British’ means ‘English with a few references to other countries within, or once within, the UK’. Why was the series not called A History of English Art? This is a puzzle. Such a title certainly would not have prevented reference to influences on English art from elsewhere in Britain and the rest of Europe.

    But at least Scottish artists were mentioned in this series. Common also is the practice of not mentioning Scottish art at all in ‘British’ accounts. The Tate Gallery, for example, in the late 1990s had a room full of interesting early twentieth century works by Epstein, Bomberg and painters associated with the Bloomsbury group. It was entitled something like ‘Early British Modernism’. Again, as with A History of British Art it was not uninteresting, it was merely misnamed. It is something of an irony that both Charles Rennie Mackintosh and J. D. Fergusson were both working within walking distance of the Tate Gallery during the period to which that display referred. The point is not to insist on quotas, but to suggest that an understanding what words mean, is appropriate in this sort of context. Every misuse of the word ‘British’ strengthens a redefinition of the word that excludes Scotland, and as a consequence Scottish art and Scottish culture in general may have to find themselves elsewhere.

    Approaching the unthinkable
    In 1906 one explanation of the problem of finding Scottish art within British accounts was suggested by W. D. McKay in The Scottish School of Painting. McKay states the obvious but essential when he notes the following ‘when, as in this case, one population far outnumbers the other, the less numerous is apt to be forgotten, or regarded as merely a sub-division of the larger’. A gloss on this forgetfulness was made by Hugh MacDiarmid half a century later in his 1950 essay Aesthetics in Scotland . There he wrote of the exhibition already noted, The Arts of Scotland, held in London just before the Second World War: ‘It will be remembered that Sir William Llewelyn, the then President of the Royal Academy, confessed that he had had no idea before he saw that exhibition that Scotland had such a rich and distinctive tradition of its own in the art of painting.’ Even as recently as 1990 surprised comment could be heard in reaction to the publication of Duncan Macmillan’s landmark book Scottish Art: 1460-1990. Such surprise is an index of cultural misrepresentation. It is related to a wider ignorance of Scottish history both within Scotland and further afield. The growth in research and teaching of Scottish history, including that of the history of Scottish art, as a tradition in its own right rather than as a sub-discipline of British history, has begun to alter this situation.

    There is thus at present a conscious redefining and refining of the relationship between Scottishness and Britishness. Some thirty years ago the philosopher George Davie noted that when a writer ‘proclaimed that modern Scotland was unthinkable apart from the union, he betrayed a point of view that takes for granted that modern Scotland does not bear thinking of at all.’ This comment can illuminate the present position. The idea that Scotland has been through a period in which a significant number of opinion formers did not think that it bore thinking about apart from the Union is an interesting one. In such a view Britain as an entity in its own right can be thought about, Scotland as an entity in its own right can not. What Davie suggests is that this makes the reality of modern Scotland in any sense ‘unthinkable’ to such a commentator. Such ‘unthinkability’ is an example of what in a psychoanalyst would call ‘denial’, that is to say the insistence on the untruth of a particular truth. Protesting too much at an unconscious or almost unconscious level, so to speak. To claim that Scotland is unthinkable apart from the Union is to protest too much. One might presume that with the devolution of power to a Scottish parliament and the clear possibility of independence, such attitudes no longer exist. But attitudes can lag behind political reality and from an attitudinal point of view the unthinkability of Scottish culture within a British context is alive and well. A question that must be considered is, how does one think about the unthinkable? Out of this paradox are born the stereotypes already referred to.

    The model of ‘Scotland as unthinkable’ is easy to find even in writing relating to contemporary art. An illuminating example is the keynote essay in a book entitled The New British Painting (1988) published by a major British art publisher to accompany a major exhibition of contemporary British painting shown in America. Scottish artists were well represented in both the exhibition and the book illustrations. It is therefore all the more ironic that in the essay in question, entitled ‘The Story of British Modernism’ the history of Scottish art is completely ignored. The essay is written as though the historical background to contemporary British painting were that of English painting. Scottish artists are mentioned, but only as part of the present. On reading this essay one would assume that there was no Scottish art prior to the decade in which the essay was written. William Blake is the first English artist to be mentioned, the first Scottish artist to be mentioned, unless one counts the London-Scot Duncan Grant, is Steven Campbell, born two centuries after Blake. Such writing is a further example of how the history of Scottish art becomes mislaid within ‘British’ accounts. It is an irony that the essay both asserts the value of contemporary Scottish art, and at the same time writes Scottish art out of history. This has the effect of making the production of Scottish artists seem to be either a sub-category of English activity or the miraculous production of savage purity, untarnished by the confusion of a recorded past, tutored only by the ghost of the monarch of the glen.

    Semantic Slippage
    Such routine abuse of the word ‘British’ leads to it having no consistency of use except in so far as any use of the word tends to strongly imply ‘English’. This duality in which it shares a kind of penumbra of loss of meaning with a fundamental Englishness is intriguing. We have in this use of the word ‘British’ a core of reference (the English) surrounded by a mantle of unthinkability (everybody else). In the political sphere this semantic slippage was neatly illustrated by John Major in early 1997 when he spoke of proposals for Scottish devolution being a threat to ‘one thousand years of British history’. Obviously enough, devolution could not be a threat to a thousand years of British history, for the British history to which the then Prime Minister referred has been in existence for either about three hundred years or about four hundred years, depending on whether you date it from the union of crowns or the union of the parliaments. For Major the truth about Scotland was clearly unthinkable. Perhaps he had been reading another interesting example of such a ‘British’ view, the leader for ‘British Theme’ week in the Radio Times in 1996 . The words ‘Britain’ or ‘British’ occur frequently, as one would expect. The words ‘us’ and ‘we’ also occur frequently. And the ‘we’ being referred to is apparently ‘the British’. So far so good. The words England and English also occur frequently. And why not? But only one literary figure – William Shakespeare – is referred to. One sporting event is referred to, the 1966 World Cup, won by England. Two victories are referred to, Agincourt and the Armada. These latter references are particularly telling for they refer to events well prior to even the union of the crowns. Indeed the only link to a British country other than to England is in a mention of the film Braveheart but it is intriguing to note that this is only mentioned in the context of American (not even Scottish) anti-Englishness. Thus, Britishness is defined by English literature, English sport, English military achievements, and American anti-Englishness. A typical aspect of this exercise in ‘Britishness’ is that its writer seems oblivious to her own bias.

    Again, the senior management of the British Broadcasting Corporation demonstrated such an attitude in an exemplary fashion in April 1995 by scheduling a Panorama interview with John Major three days before the local elections in Scotland and in direct contravention of their own guidelines. The Scottish law courts forced a rethink and very few people took seriously the subsequent claim by those responsible that they would have done the same three days before the elections in England and Wales. It was generally understood that at the root of the affair was ignorance. It is important to understand that this was not just ignorance in the sense of not knowing something, but more an attitude of ignorance, a culture in which certain kinds of ignorance are promoted. Panorama has built up expertise in this area. In a programme which purported to be about the negative attitude of the British man or woman on the street to the introduction of the Euro, broadcast in February 1999 it did not seem cross the programme-maker’s mind to reflect that the one part of Europe that has long term experience of currency union, is in fact the UK. This was because the programme was not about Britain any more than Tony Blair’s assertion that the British were attached to the image of the Queen’s head on bank notes was about Britain, the point being, of course, that the Queen’s head does not appear on Scottish banknotes. Taken separately these examples are trivial to the point of tedium, taken together they reflect an ignorance so pervasive that you need a theory to account for it. Foucault has helped greatly in this with his concept of ‘silences’, which captures the notion of actively ignoring something. It is appropriate to recall that the original panoramas were supposedly comprehensive – but in fact highly selective – views painted on the inside of windowless wooden huts. Panorama can thus be thought of as living up to an aspect of its own history. This kind of windowless-hut perception can be taken as characterising the information considered significant by London governmental and media bodies with respect to Scottish culture. Certainly the decision of the BBC not to have a separate Scottish six o’clock news in the wake of devolution betrays an assumption that a major rebalancing of the political constitution of Britain did not require a cognate media response.

    Eternally Recurrent Renaissance
    This attitude is not to be seen in terms of antipathy, but in terms of a kind of actively-maintained ignorance. It can be manifested in periods of neglect followed by periods of overenthusiasm, a pattern which I have called elsewhere ‘eternally recurrent renaissance’. Since the London media is highly influential in Scotland this misperception from south of the Border puts Scots in the curious position of encountering their own culture both through local knowledge and through London interpretation. Thus a James Kelman novel may leave Glasgow as part of a developed literary tradition but it returns from London redefined as the spontaneous product of a Glasgow hard-man. As James Kelman himself has noted, the Saint Andrews philosopher James Frederick Ferrier coined the word ‘epistemology’ for theory of knowledge. But Ferrier coined another word, which has not gained the same popularity – ‘agnoiology’ does not even appear in most dictionaries. This refers to the theory of ignorance, which Ferrier saw as being the necessary complement of a theory of knowledge. One might object that a theory of knowledge must take ignorance into account and that therefore a separate theory of ignorance is not needed. This has been a popular view. But theories, if they are anything, are ways of giving emphasis, and to emphasise as one’s starting point what is and can be known, draws one to see a different landscape of thought from that which one may encounter from a starting point of that which is not known and perhaps cannot be. To pursue the metaphor, an epistemological approach lets one look up and give names to the high features of the land, whereas an agnoiological approach allows an insight into the hidden geological movements which threw up the mountain ranges in the first place. This begins to sound like a description of a Freudian view of the conscious and the unconscious and that is no mistake, for it is just such interactions of the known or knowable with the unknown or unknowable that psycho-dynamic theories explore. There is a growing tendency to apply such theoretical models to the study of cultures, and Freud showed the way in this regard not least with his description of the ‘uneasiness inherent in culture.’ Perhaps such an approach can be used to explore the ways in which Scottish cultural matters are presented or mislaid within British accounts.

    While not all ‘British’ accounts ignore Scottish art, there is frequently a problem of finding Scottish art within them. Scrutiny of such ‘British’ accounts is, however, interesting, not least because the search for Scottish art within them reveals their inadequacy. Consideration of such inadequacy can lead one to consider the tendency to condone selective cultural ignorance within the British establishment. More positively such consideration can lead one to reflect on the growing interest in British history among thinkers who take the plurality of Britishness as their starting point, rather than as something best avoided. Linda Colley has made a significant contribution here in her book Britons published in 1992. More recently Alexander Murdoch’s British History has been a notable addition. The prospect opens that by finding Scottish art and properly acknowledging it, a set of critical models of what might constitute a British art might follow.

  7. Iain says:

    Good piece and Bella is to be commended for publishing these artiles on our lingustic heritage and present.

    One thing I don’t understand though is why Bella continues to promote ‘Gillesbuig Aotrom’ in the links section. Can anyone at BC actually read what this guy writes? And if they are happy with the bitter personal attacks contained in GA on many decent people involved in Gaelic activism (and not just those who make a wage from using the language) will they also promote the recent negative tirades from the likes of Hugh Reilly and Alan Massie not to mention the witterings of Joan Burnie? After all, they are all saying the same thing. Indeed, the author has added his support of Reilly’s disgusting piece of hate to the comments section of the Scotsman.

    Different opinions are to be welcomed but sustained personal attacks from someone who offers nothing creative of his own should be binned.

  8. mrbfaethedee says:

    och! I can’t believe that my typo’s weren’t airbrushed out for posterity 🙂

    I’m sure all the various strands of history and culture we package as Scottish will continue to weave together into the future.
    Articles like this remind us to give room to each others voices, and be mindful of the wonderfully varied audiences we address.

    From the article –
    ‘if it is the case that these fundamentally different senses of the Scottish ‘nation’ can lead to divisiveness and anger when each claims ‘Scotland’ as its own’
    This is where I would be at odds with the article. I think that it is this idea that one sense of cultural identity claiming to be the (central/real/true/etc..) Scottish identity, which is the fallacy at the heart of any of this cultural friction – like my right arm claiming to be the real me, not those other so-called’ body parts!
    I want my country’s cultures all coming together at the interfaces where they meet, that’s part of the beauty of it all, surely?
    I’m all for highly granular governmental organisation, but please, not because of an unnecessary desire to lock our people’s cultures into ever decreasing borders.

  9. “The principle of Scottish self-determination should also recognise the deep diversity of Scotland’s cultural histories and in doing so seek to respect and to nurture the multicultural and multinational nature of Scottish identities. Then we might be able to acknowledge ‘us’ and ‘them’ without being anti-anyone.”

    I’m afraid I have to disagree with the notion of Scotland being a multinational construct, and it is debatable with the current constitutional arrangement whether we are presently a Nation at all. Gaeldom has had no realistic claim to a distinct nationhood since the forfeiture of the Lordship of the Isles in 1493. The Northern Isles’ remaining political idiosyncrasies were more or less extirpated by the Stewart Earls of Orkney in the 16th Century.

    An independent Scotland will be one Nation with many cultural heritages, both Scottish of old and the heritage brought by more recent immigrants. I tend to shy away from the term multicultural in its modern British sense as to my mind it is a figleaf for the failure if integration in England and hence the preponderance of mono-ethnic ghettoes there.

    1. Abulhaq says:

      Our nationhood, in the modern political sense, was subverted by the Union. England, despite the Union, became a nation and a powerful one. We seem to have “slept” or been hypnotised like rabbits in headlights during this process allowing prestige, wealth and influence to acrue to our neighbour; even voluntarily contributing to the process by promoting its culture and values. There is something quite shameful in the way our ancestors, some our cherished icons, sold-out or disparaged their native land, its cultures and people with scarce a flinch of conscience. I hope that the penny has finally dropped and we ditch the self-lacerating charade of Britishness. It is anti everything we ought to be, politically, culturally and existentially: écrasez l’infâme!

    2. Iain MacKinnon says:

      Hello Roddy,

      I think it is important to distinguish between statehood (which is primarily a political construct) and nationhood (which is, as I noted in the article, a deeper sense of affiliation or ‘large scale solidarity’ among a group of people). A sense of Gaidheal political sovereignty, or ‘statehood’, was lost in the late 15th and early 16th centuries when the Scottish Crown first accepted and then forfeited the Ri Innsi Gall’s Scottish title of Lord of the Isles, and then annexed our lands to the Scottish Crown – the international law scholar Hans Kelsen describes acts of annexation as illegal acts which become legal through being effected.

      However, the sense of Gaidheal nationhood as ‘large scale solidarity’ clearly lasted beyond 1493 and through the repeated uprisings of the early 16th century. Indeed the illegality and injustice of the Scottish Crown’s deeds probably contributed to the numerous island based risings that took place in the 16th century and after. It is this sense of nationhood as solidarity that John MacInnes writes about in a contemporary context, and which I am raising in the article.

      The loss of statehood has had a detrimental affect on Gaidheal nationhood, but, even in detritus, it still exists. I am reminded of Sorley Maclean’s closing words in the poem Hallaig: “its blood will not be traced while I live”. These are hard words but good words. If a sense of solidarity and a will to act are present, some restoration of political sovereignty is possible – to my mind crofting and community land ownership – both of which are focussed on what is still the heartland of the Gaidheal – exemplify this.

  10. This reflection reminded me of a passage in James Hogg’s account of his journey through the Highlands where he remarks on the Scots use of the term “country”, by which a country is the territory surveyed from the bottom of a valley to the horizons all around, so that the traveler, in the course of a few days, can expect to pass through several such countries. Abulhaq’s suggestion that Scotland is still becoming a nation fits with the sense that as such countries shrink, because of modern communications, a sense of nation may still be growing. I am minded also of how Burns, though a Lowlander, could write “my heart in the Highlands”.

    No conclusions – just musings.

    1. Abulhaq says:

      When a Frenchman talks of “mon pays” he may mean France or more likely the “pays” or locality where he was born. Similarly in Italy with “paese” or “balad” in Arabic or “dùthaich” in Gaelic. “Scot” is a one-size-fits-all term. The referent may well differ in signification from subject to subject. Attitudes to Gaelic, for example, provoke telling reactions. Indeed the “language issue” and the cultural implications of revival and promotion of our indigenous tongues can excite hostile responses even among ardent nationalists. L’esprit du clocher, charming in its proper place, is a real pain out of context. The nation builders, i.e. the visionaries, those who dare to see beyond the bounds of the commonplace, will be sorely needed during those “running-in” years post-independence.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.