What do you think?
Rate this book
Scotland's Story
Tom Steel has written an easy to read and comprehensive timeline of Scotland's history. His book discusses the various political, geographical, personal and economic events in Scottish history that make Scotland the land it is today. He discusses particularly how Scotland's almost continuous battle with English has contributed to the way we see Scotland and it's inhabitants and how they see themselves. This is not a greatly detailed book in terms of listing absolutely every date and event that ever occured in Scotland, nor does the author place Scotland in terms of what's happening in the rest of the world at any given time during Scottish history. However, this book is an excellent place to start for a broad overview of Scotland's long, proud and often violent history.
ISBN 0-00-637003-9
ISBN 0-00-637003-9
358 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
40 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 30, 2021
Scotland's Story
From Early Middle-Age Feudalism to Late Middle-Age Monarchy; Catholicism to Presbyterianism; Economics to Politics; Civil Wars to World Wars; Industrial Revolution to Emergent Unemployment, and; Unionism to Nationalism, the struggles of Scotland's story has everything in supply of action and drama, sympathy and anger, whereby rooted in its Scots are hopes, dreams, and pursuits of building a better life elsewhere from torturous relationships across the Border, and at home, with far-reaching results. Where the supposedly united-homeland over the Centuries had prohibited and discouraged their identity, consumed their economy, dismissed their policies, and sucked their industry from them the burdened Scots found havens in Countries like France, America, Australia, Poland, New Zealand, and even in South Africa. There, they built from the ground up vibrant communities, brought their education with them, showed insights that they discovered whilst studying abroad, and worked towards the independence of other nations - many Scots are attributed with the Declaration of Independence of America; fought alongside as knights with Joan of Arc, and; were many times high-ranking regimental guardians to European kings, ultimately culminating in today's modern advances of Scots and Scots-descent Prime Ministers and Presidents.
Equally frustrating was the revelation of their other historical enemies - themselves! Scotland has, as its Scots, a diverse pool of opinions and contributions. Many well-educated Scots brought back with them from studying abroad new managements and administrations, or new ways of thinking and educating. Inevitably, this also spread into politics and economics. Whereas many saw Scotland could progress and flourish in the new system, as equally as many believed Scotland was relatively fine and flourishing as it stood. In reality, however, Scotland's wealth and economy struggled immensely, to a point when in the 17th Century it was the poorest Country in Europe. Some thought the new ways would dismantle the old, and put Scotland even further down the pit of despair, although most of these opinions could only be actioned by the nobility of their government, known then as the Estates. The Scots in politics are not homogenous, and this can be both a good and a bad thing, with many times bringing heated discussions - this has not changed today.
But what happens when one Country, bent on war and conquest, accrues a National Debt of £15,000,000 that it cannot afford to pay? Where, the other Country lays peacefully with a National Debt of under £200,000? When, jealously protecting its own free-trade, the former suffocated the latter by its wars affecting and cutting off trade-links to these European partners of the latter? And, by promising to pay an Equivalent Sum for Union, threatens the latter with either bribery of its nobility to vote in favour or suffer the consequences of an invading army by Queensbery?
Answer: A "United Kingdom".
And from this United Kingdom, Scotland was to share in paying England's £15,000,000 National Debt, while England still was in wars until 1814, through the Succession Wars of France, Spain, Austria, and the Dutch wars - ultimately, and constantly, exacerbating and suffocating Scotland's trade-partners. But, that's not all, either. Scotland was to do the unthinkable, and sacrifice its own Political autonomy by abolishing its own Parliament, for a new "British Parliament". As this book further discusses in detail, the promises made fell the instant this Union was made - and the English Parliament, assumedly abolished for the British one, was rather left unchanged and rather healthily continuing in the new British. Two examples of this would be; the first, the assumption that the Monarchy then, as it is assumed now, is English: Queen Elizabeth is not Elizabeth II to Scotland, to North Ireland, to Wales, or indeed to the United Kingdom - but rather, Queen Elizabeth I. Elizabeth II, as she is known Globally, is from the English lineage - despite her lineage is Scottish by descent, not English, going back to Robert II and Robert the Bruce, king of Scots; the second, that upon allocating politicians to represent Scotland in this British Parliament, the English recommended 38 seats, and even sent for who they preferred. Eventually, this number increased to 45 seats. While at the time seats were allocated according to wealth, even then it was an egregious dismissal of Scottish politicians. 45 seats represented the whole of Scotland, a Country: 46 seats represented Cornwall, a county of England ten-times smaller than Scotland. This included the total number of English seats, which were 513. A ratio of 11 to 1 was to represent Scottish affairs, laws, policies, administration, transport, import/export, foreign aide and affairs, all without their own Government. And such representation would not be rectified until 1860, by a revolutionising Scottish crowd of politicans. "... the breaches of the terms of Union sprang from ignorance and arrogance. The new Parliament of Great Britain was 400 miles away... A predominantly English House of Commons, moreover, thought in terms of their own Country. Ignorant of the law of Scotland they regarded their own system as superior. The English paid little attention to the Scottish MPs in their midst... The Scots... became tools of the two English political parties, the Whigs and the Tories."
Furthermore, as part of the Act of Union in 1707, England had promised to send a sum called the Equivalent to assist in the sudden debt-share Scotland had to have responsibility in paying, with increased taxations. Almost immediately, England failed to act on its promise, and the Equivalent Sum arrived three months late in suspect amounts, with only a quarter of what was in the agreement actually coin. In 1705 king William of Orange made the "Alien Act", a notorious Act that deemed all Scots not in England, Ireland, Wales, or in the Queen Anne's army as "alien", and therefore revoked and confiscated all estates and lands, and exports of cattle, linen, coal, and wool to England prohibited for the trial of Captain Green, on trial for the rumour that he and his men destroyed a Company of Scotland tradeship. It led to Daniel Defoe saying, "It was the most impolitic, I had almost said, unjust... that ever passed that great assembly."
Daniel Defoe is an interesting character, as he was one English spy who was sent to Edinburgh by Lord Godolphin in 1706 to persuade the Scots that the Union was to be beneficial for Scotland. He'd also persuaded the English beforehand. However, with clarity of now being in the Union in 1713 and witnessing the immediate effect it had on Scotland's ports on his visit, he detracted his view of the Union and regretted his decision, saying that the abolishment of the Crown Jewel, Scotland's government and Crown from 1603, was what led to the disaster, and that the Union only benefited England - an argument that Lord Belhaven and Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun both previously had made in passionate speeches at the discussions in Parliament of the Union in the 1700s before the Act.
The author provides vital insight and resource to the leading events in history precipitating the Union, and the struggles thereafter, also involving the Industrial Revolution in which Scotland contributed heavily, that would eventually cripple itself in the World Wars. What must be reminded, when reading this academic text, is that the book was published in 1984, and it is notable the questions of the future of Scotland the author makes near the end. It was written before Scotland reconvened its Scottish Government in 1999. It was written before Margaret Thatcher, "The Iron Lady", became infamous for her policies against Scotland, for John Mayor who continued them in the 1990s, before Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Syria, 911, Afghanistan, the 2014 Independence Referendum and much more. What would the author have thought in today's current climate, after his sadly pessimistic view then? "It is Britain's loss, not only Scotland's... Many Nationalists, and curiously some of them are English now living in Scotland, view their cause long-term... Nationalism may prove to be a moral rather than a political issue. A greater degree of independence may be the only thing that can give the Scots their self-respect and their dignity." That rise in it feeling like a moral cause rather than just political may indeed be a reality. Until then, Scotland remains an amanuensis to Britain's wants and needs through written history and record. And the attitude in politics may not have expressly changed either, just become more tactful and subtle. In fact, in a bid to quell and crush national feeling, understanding, and pride, the British government has issued that politicans in Westminster should cease referring to the UK as "four Countries" but rather "one Country" - which will only bring resentment; MP Joe Morrissey has issued that all UK homes and companies should have a portrait of the Queen to bring back pride in Britain - which is how North Korea justifies it; The British Government is taking Scotland's National Railway Transport model, ScotsRail, and using it for nationalising their Railway system between London and other parts of England, joining it with ScotsRail, and calling it instead the, "Great British Railways", and; there was even talk of, even if improbable and unrealistic, Unionist plans to encourage the disbandment of the Scottish National Football Team - the joint-oldest International Team in the World with England - to be in line with the 2014 Referendum No vote result, with the argument following the line that the EU should unite its team, just so that, "Scottish nationalists would understand that independence in Europe is a senseless concept as it would make clear... parts of the EU are mere regions."
What history provides us with is an advantage of retrospective clarity to the situations and conditions that predated, but may correlate with, the attitudes, thoughts, uses and abuses of today. It merely represents the paradox between the continuous clashing of ideas for governing two Countries independent of each other, yet claim to be united together. The present, as it always is, remains a mystery until it becomes a history.
If Scottish nationalists are ignorant of future potentials, Scottish unionists are ignorant of past transgressions.
"In 1979, the United States Bureau looked at the characteristics of Americans of Scottish, English, French, German, Irish, Italian, Polish and Spanish origin. The Scots emerged superior. Of all European immigrants they were the best educated and the best paid. Twenty-five of seventy-three Americans honoured in the Nation's Hall of Fame claimed some Scots ancestry. So too have eleven United States Presidents, a half of all Secretaries of the US Treasury, and a third of the Country's Secretaries of State."
From Early Middle-Age Feudalism to Late Middle-Age Monarchy; Catholicism to Presbyterianism; Economics to Politics; Civil Wars to World Wars; Industrial Revolution to Emergent Unemployment, and; Unionism to Nationalism, the struggles of Scotland's story has everything in supply of action and drama, sympathy and anger, whereby rooted in its Scots are hopes, dreams, and pursuits of building a better life elsewhere from torturous relationships across the Border, and at home, with far-reaching results. Where the supposedly united-homeland over the Centuries had prohibited and discouraged their identity, consumed their economy, dismissed their policies, and sucked their industry from them the burdened Scots found havens in Countries like France, America, Australia, Poland, New Zealand, and even in South Africa. There, they built from the ground up vibrant communities, brought their education with them, showed insights that they discovered whilst studying abroad, and worked towards the independence of other nations - many Scots are attributed with the Declaration of Independence of America; fought alongside as knights with Joan of Arc, and; were many times high-ranking regimental guardians to European kings, ultimately culminating in today's modern advances of Scots and Scots-descent Prime Ministers and Presidents.
Equally frustrating was the revelation of their other historical enemies - themselves! Scotland has, as its Scots, a diverse pool of opinions and contributions. Many well-educated Scots brought back with them from studying abroad new managements and administrations, or new ways of thinking and educating. Inevitably, this also spread into politics and economics. Whereas many saw Scotland could progress and flourish in the new system, as equally as many believed Scotland was relatively fine and flourishing as it stood. In reality, however, Scotland's wealth and economy struggled immensely, to a point when in the 17th Century it was the poorest Country in Europe. Some thought the new ways would dismantle the old, and put Scotland even further down the pit of despair, although most of these opinions could only be actioned by the nobility of their government, known then as the Estates. The Scots in politics are not homogenous, and this can be both a good and a bad thing, with many times bringing heated discussions - this has not changed today.
But what happens when one Country, bent on war and conquest, accrues a National Debt of £15,000,000 that it cannot afford to pay? Where, the other Country lays peacefully with a National Debt of under £200,000? When, jealously protecting its own free-trade, the former suffocated the latter by its wars affecting and cutting off trade-links to these European partners of the latter? And, by promising to pay an Equivalent Sum for Union, threatens the latter with either bribery of its nobility to vote in favour or suffer the consequences of an invading army by Queensbery?
Answer: A "United Kingdom".
And from this United Kingdom, Scotland was to share in paying England's £15,000,000 National Debt, while England still was in wars until 1814, through the Succession Wars of France, Spain, Austria, and the Dutch wars - ultimately, and constantly, exacerbating and suffocating Scotland's trade-partners. But, that's not all, either. Scotland was to do the unthinkable, and sacrifice its own Political autonomy by abolishing its own Parliament, for a new "British Parliament". As this book further discusses in detail, the promises made fell the instant this Union was made - and the English Parliament, assumedly abolished for the British one, was rather left unchanged and rather healthily continuing in the new British. Two examples of this would be; the first, the assumption that the Monarchy then, as it is assumed now, is English: Queen Elizabeth is not Elizabeth II to Scotland, to North Ireland, to Wales, or indeed to the United Kingdom - but rather, Queen Elizabeth I. Elizabeth II, as she is known Globally, is from the English lineage - despite her lineage is Scottish by descent, not English, going back to Robert II and Robert the Bruce, king of Scots; the second, that upon allocating politicians to represent Scotland in this British Parliament, the English recommended 38 seats, and even sent for who they preferred. Eventually, this number increased to 45 seats. While at the time seats were allocated according to wealth, even then it was an egregious dismissal of Scottish politicians. 45 seats represented the whole of Scotland, a Country: 46 seats represented Cornwall, a county of England ten-times smaller than Scotland. This included the total number of English seats, which were 513. A ratio of 11 to 1 was to represent Scottish affairs, laws, policies, administration, transport, import/export, foreign aide and affairs, all without their own Government. And such representation would not be rectified until 1860, by a revolutionising Scottish crowd of politicans. "... the breaches of the terms of Union sprang from ignorance and arrogance. The new Parliament of Great Britain was 400 miles away... A predominantly English House of Commons, moreover, thought in terms of their own Country. Ignorant of the law of Scotland they regarded their own system as superior. The English paid little attention to the Scottish MPs in their midst... The Scots... became tools of the two English political parties, the Whigs and the Tories."
Furthermore, as part of the Act of Union in 1707, England had promised to send a sum called the Equivalent to assist in the sudden debt-share Scotland had to have responsibility in paying, with increased taxations. Almost immediately, England failed to act on its promise, and the Equivalent Sum arrived three months late in suspect amounts, with only a quarter of what was in the agreement actually coin. In 1705 king William of Orange made the "Alien Act", a notorious Act that deemed all Scots not in England, Ireland, Wales, or in the Queen Anne's army as "alien", and therefore revoked and confiscated all estates and lands, and exports of cattle, linen, coal, and wool to England prohibited for the trial of Captain Green, on trial for the rumour that he and his men destroyed a Company of Scotland tradeship. It led to Daniel Defoe saying, "It was the most impolitic, I had almost said, unjust... that ever passed that great assembly."
Daniel Defoe is an interesting character, as he was one English spy who was sent to Edinburgh by Lord Godolphin in 1706 to persuade the Scots that the Union was to be beneficial for Scotland. He'd also persuaded the English beforehand. However, with clarity of now being in the Union in 1713 and witnessing the immediate effect it had on Scotland's ports on his visit, he detracted his view of the Union and regretted his decision, saying that the abolishment of the Crown Jewel, Scotland's government and Crown from 1603, was what led to the disaster, and that the Union only benefited England - an argument that Lord Belhaven and Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun both previously had made in passionate speeches at the discussions in Parliament of the Union in the 1700s before the Act.
The author provides vital insight and resource to the leading events in history precipitating the Union, and the struggles thereafter, also involving the Industrial Revolution in which Scotland contributed heavily, that would eventually cripple itself in the World Wars. What must be reminded, when reading this academic text, is that the book was published in 1984, and it is notable the questions of the future of Scotland the author makes near the end. It was written before Scotland reconvened its Scottish Government in 1999. It was written before Margaret Thatcher, "The Iron Lady", became infamous for her policies against Scotland, for John Mayor who continued them in the 1990s, before Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Syria, 911, Afghanistan, the 2014 Independence Referendum and much more. What would the author have thought in today's current climate, after his sadly pessimistic view then? "It is Britain's loss, not only Scotland's... Many Nationalists, and curiously some of them are English now living in Scotland, view their cause long-term... Nationalism may prove to be a moral rather than a political issue. A greater degree of independence may be the only thing that can give the Scots their self-respect and their dignity." That rise in it feeling like a moral cause rather than just political may indeed be a reality. Until then, Scotland remains an amanuensis to Britain's wants and needs through written history and record. And the attitude in politics may not have expressly changed either, just become more tactful and subtle. In fact, in a bid to quell and crush national feeling, understanding, and pride, the British government has issued that politicans in Westminster should cease referring to the UK as "four Countries" but rather "one Country" - which will only bring resentment; MP Joe Morrissey has issued that all UK homes and companies should have a portrait of the Queen to bring back pride in Britain - which is how North Korea justifies it; The British Government is taking Scotland's National Railway Transport model, ScotsRail, and using it for nationalising their Railway system between London and other parts of England, joining it with ScotsRail, and calling it instead the, "Great British Railways", and; there was even talk of, even if improbable and unrealistic, Unionist plans to encourage the disbandment of the Scottish National Football Team - the joint-oldest International Team in the World with England - to be in line with the 2014 Referendum No vote result, with the argument following the line that the EU should unite its team, just so that, "Scottish nationalists would understand that independence in Europe is a senseless concept as it would make clear... parts of the EU are mere regions."
What history provides us with is an advantage of retrospective clarity to the situations and conditions that predated, but may correlate with, the attitudes, thoughts, uses and abuses of today. It merely represents the paradox between the continuous clashing of ideas for governing two Countries independent of each other, yet claim to be united together. The present, as it always is, remains a mystery until it becomes a history.
If Scottish nationalists are ignorant of future potentials, Scottish unionists are ignorant of past transgressions.
"In 1979, the United States Bureau looked at the characteristics of Americans of Scottish, English, French, German, Irish, Italian, Polish and Spanish origin. The Scots emerged superior. Of all European immigrants they were the best educated and the best paid. Twenty-five of seventy-three Americans honoured in the Nation's Hall of Fame claimed some Scots ancestry. So too have eleven United States Presidents, a half of all Secretaries of the US Treasury, and a third of the Country's Secretaries of State."
August 9, 2015
A really entertaining account of Scotland's history. I have no doubt it is slightly biased to a Nationalists view, but that is probably hard to avoid given the behaviour of English nobility towards their northern neighbours. Full of fascinating incidents and nation defining warriors, would be kings, authors and inventors, it covers everything from the Scottish enlightenment to the industrial revolution. A comprehensive view that makes you proud to be Scottish.
November 11, 2009
For all the bloodshed, it was a wee bit dry! Sometimes it seemed to be a vast list of names, but I guess that's hard not to do in a relatively short book that covers thousands of years. It was still interesting, though.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews