typewriter's review against another edition
Disclaimer: I read an outdated edition which was updated in 2014 and is not the most recent one.
For a book that was supposed to agree with my interests and political views, it would be hard to disappoint more thoroughly. If you are looking for a history book, don't bother. If you want to understand the state of the working class, this book will leave you largely un- (and occasionally mis-) informed. If you are looking for pandering or propaganda, you are in the right place.
The title is probably my biggest gripe with the book. When it proclaims itself a people's history, this means it will deal primarily with the labour movement, which is in my opinion a very limited view of the "people's" interests. Even this explanation falls short, because in the early chapters it does little to explain the conditions of working-class life, instead going into a run-of-the-mill account of the wars of independence. For a people's history, the feminism of this book is incomplete and unfocused, passing over the suffrage movement and similar milestones in equal rights altogether, and instead giving us gems such as "girl pickets" and "Despite such [sexist] statements, his two wives, Margaret ‘Peggy’ Skinner and Valda Trevlyn, were fiercely independent women." I also would've liked a more in-depth analysis of Scotland's role in British colonialism.
Aside from complaints about the content, the book is just badly written. The prose, although usually readable, is occasionally labyrinthine and obscures who exactly is being referred to. In addition, Bayberry does not do much analysis on the events he is explaining, especially when discussing strikes, where government actions are not explained at all, leading to a confused and one-sided portrayal of events that inhibits the reader's understanding of why history played out the way it did. In addition, the last chapter and conclusion serve more as propaganda than anything; pronouns such as I, we, and our are employed, and frequent appeals to the reader's assumed sense of patriotism are made. This includes a call to action at the end encouraging the reader to vote for Scottish independence in the 2014 referendum. I am not Scottish, so this was strange to read, and I found it strange that Bamberry would write a history book in a way that becomes outdated this quickly.
At the end, I am left wondering if I can trust any of the information in this book given the gaps I was able to find in areas I know more about. I am not a historian, so the flaws I was able to find suggest the presence of others I was not informed enough to grasp, and thus any information gained is useless to me.
For a book that was supposed to agree with my interests and political views, it would be hard to disappoint more thoroughly. If you are looking for a history book, don't bother. If you want to understand the state of the working class, this book will leave you largely un- (and occasionally mis-) informed. If you are looking for pandering or propaganda, you are in the right place.
The title is probably my biggest gripe with the book. When it proclaims itself a people's history, this means it will deal primarily with the labour movement, which is in my opinion a very limited view of the "people's" interests. Even this explanation falls short, because in the early chapters it does little to explain the conditions of working-class life, instead going into a run-of-the-mill account of the wars of independence. For a people's history, the feminism of this book is incomplete and unfocused, passing over the suffrage movement and similar milestones in equal rights altogether, and instead giving us gems such as "girl pickets" and "Despite such [sexist] statements, his two wives, Margaret ‘Peggy’ Skinner and Valda Trevlyn, were fiercely independent women." I also would've liked a more in-depth analysis of Scotland's role in British colonialism.
Aside from complaints about the content, the book is just badly written. The prose, although usually readable, is occasionally labyrinthine and obscures who exactly is being referred to. In addition, Bayberry does not do much analysis on the events he is explaining, especially when discussing strikes, where government actions are not explained at all, leading to a confused and one-sided portrayal of events that inhibits the reader's understanding of why history played out the way it did. In addition, the last chapter and conclusion serve more as propaganda than anything; pronouns such as I, we, and our are employed, and frequent appeals to the reader's assumed sense of patriotism are made. This includes a call to action at the end encouraging the reader to vote for Scottish independence in the 2014 referendum. I am not Scottish, so this was strange to read, and I found it strange that Bamberry would write a history book in a way that becomes outdated this quickly.
At the end, I am left wondering if I can trust any of the information in this book given the gaps I was able to find in areas I know more about. I am not a historian, so the flaws I was able to find suggest the presence of others I was not informed enough to grasp, and thus any information gained is useless to me.
sadie_reads_again's review against another edition
4.0
Wanting to know more of the history of my own country (we only really got the Highland Clearances in school), I opted for this book as I am far more interested in social history and how the political or ruling landscape impacted the majority than I am in the lives of the rich and titled. I felt this book satisfied on that front, but possibly not as much as I was hoping.
The early chapters - which as this book takes a chronological approach deal with Scotland in its infancy up to the time of clans - were a bit of a struggle for me. I don't have any background knowledge, so felt it was a bit difficult at time to get a toe-hold. Even when I did, I'd often lose my grip after a page or two. A lot goes on, and this isn't a particularly long book in which to cover it.
I far more enjoyed the chapters on more modern history, particularly the independence debate. And I also enjoyed the touch of highlighting specific figures/figureheads. I found the role of women and the socialist movement particularly interesting, though did feel bogged down with the coverage of the strikes as the labour movement grew in momentum. At that point, I wondered if chronological was really the best way to tell our country's story, and that maybe a topic-by-topic approach may have made for less repetitive reading.
There is so much information in this book that there's no way I'll retain it (my flaw, not the book's), but I'm very glad I read it and will have it to return to when I need it!
The early chapters - which as this book takes a chronological approach deal with Scotland in its infancy up to the time of clans - were a bit of a struggle for me. I don't have any background knowledge, so felt it was a bit difficult at time to get a toe-hold. Even when I did, I'd often lose my grip after a page or two. A lot goes on, and this isn't a particularly long book in which to cover it.
I far more enjoyed the chapters on more modern history, particularly the independence debate. And I also enjoyed the touch of highlighting specific figures/figureheads. I found the role of women and the socialist movement particularly interesting, though did feel bogged down with the coverage of the strikes as the labour movement grew in momentum. At that point, I wondered if chronological was really the best way to tell our country's story, and that maybe a topic-by-topic approach may have made for less repetitive reading.
There is so much information in this book that there's no way I'll retain it (my flaw, not the book's), but I'm very glad I read it and will have it to return to when I need it!
bookaddictkatie's review against another edition
2.0
The history is fascinating, but the prose is so dry I almost choked on it.
More...