Dismantling the Burns Myths

 

(Or attempting to!)  Our Scots bard has been portrayed at times as a reckless, womanising drunk, and his poetry work has not been taken seriously by academics and educators. I believe these false myths are far from the truth and are of serious consideration. Because our national bard continues to this day to have a significant impact on Scots national image and psyche. 

He has written some of Scots most loved poetry and songs and we celebrate Burns night each January 25^th.

 

He has been dismissed as an uneducated farmer. These myths matter, because as our Scots national bard Burns image is one of the most famous image for Scots. It matters on our images of “Scottishness” and of our long history of Scots cultural identity. 

  In fact Burns was voted by Scots as the most iconic Scots image, much like Mozart’s image in Vienna. During Victorian empire times Burns was viewed as part of the empire narrative associated to Walter Scott’s romantic Scottish nostalgia – of a Scotland that was lost and gone forever – and this image focused on Burns love poems, while neglecting his other work.

 

The elites, the academics and literati in Edinburgh found it hard to accept the farmer Burns in his boots who never attended university: but was self educated through his local education, his father and his own reading. He met the great and the good here and began his song collecting journeys, after meeting James Jamieson who published the Scot musical museum.    

  

Burns was far more than the peasant farmer or ploughman poet and was highly educated. What is often ignored is that Burns father was a cultured, disciplined and well spoken man himself, who greatly valued education for his family. His mother knew and sang all the old Scots ballads. For a few years Burns attended a school in Ayr where he was taught by the young teacher John Murdoch, at the age of seven, and he became a great reader. After which he and Gilbert were tutored by Murdoch over the occasional summer months.

 

 Yes he may have occasionally enjoyed social drinking, but as he writes from Ellisland to his friend Robert Cunningham in 1791, after a party when he had sold off the Ellisland farm equipment:  “After the roup was over, about thirty people engaged in a battle and fought it out for three hours. Not was the scene much better in the house. Not fighting, indeed, but folk lying drunk on the floor and decanting, until both my dogs got so drunk by attending them, that they could not stand. You will easily guess how I enjoyed the scene as I was no further over than you used to see me.”  

Tam O Shanter by Alexander Goudie

Anchors Close Edinburgh

Edina , the New World

Poozie Nansies

Burns & highland Mary

Library books Ellisland

There has been too much negativity written. Why? Was it because Burns didn’t fit into normal accepted norms, and had friends he met at the Globe Inn who were reformers for votes for all men? Because he grew up the son of a tenant farmer?  Because he was a free, independent thinker, who challenged the elites narratives. Or mainly because he wrote in the Scots language and therefore was not to be taken seriously. 

Considering all Burns writing, studying, researching and collecting – his many letters, poems, songs and epistles. His years of toil and hard farm labour growing up, plus his Scotia travels during his short life and all the myths that surround him. I find it hard to believe that Burns was a hard drinker as some myths put out. Because, how did he find time to write some of his best poetry at Ellisland and in Dumfries – plus his Excise work of detailed record keeping, long days travelling on horseback and being a young father. 

Edinburgh Festival All Rise 2026

“I am, All Rise.. look further, look beyond, can’t you see - look higher .

I’m going   to rise and rise.

World-class Opera, Music, Theatre and Dance  Spanning 24 days and 147 performances, 

The Edinburgh International Festival returns 7–30 August 2026. With five world premieres and ten works commissioned by the International Festival, this year marks Nicola Benedetti's fourth year as Festival Director.

Nicola Benedetti - I fell in love with U S of A. instantly. I was 16 years old and within 24 hours my relationship to its “wild, abrasive, exuberant, heart filled yet harsh ferocity was sealed. I was shocked and intoxicated.”

Angels in America

An Enemy of the People

This years program celebrates the ideas and impact of the USA’s 250 years, from the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 

With “recurring themes of freedom and ingenuity, leadership and cruelty, prejudice and perseverance and hypocrisy sit colourfully within proud demarcations of the height of artistic and creative achievement.’ Many of these could happen only in America.  

 

2026 Theme: All Rise  All Rise is a rallying cry encompassing collaboration, resilience and ascendance. 

Marking the 250th anniversary of American independence. To experience themes of freedom, ingenuity, prejudice, and hypocrisy, alongside the creative achievements made possible by the friction and energy of America's cultural melting pot. 

ALL RISE ! With Wynton Marselis

All Rise Opening concert! -

All Rise celebrates togetherness and transcendence.”

The world of the magnificent, the dazzling, the dark, the powerful, the tragic, its extreme, the powerful, the tragic, the 

virtuous, the art of the possible.

Opens with a rise to action, All Rise is an epic symphonic work, by Wynton Marselis, with over 200 performers in a communal journey through 12 stages of living - of Joy, romance, virtuosity, fun and improvisation, our making mistakes and subsequent suffering and ultimate forgiveness, freedom and self knowledge.

 

Opera The 2026 opera programme hosts two staged operas at the Festival Theatre. Verdi's A Masked Ball from Zurich Opera is set in the opulent American Gilded Age, whilst The Galloping Cure, a world premiere from Missy Mazzoli and Royce Vavrek’s confronts the global opioid crisis. Scottish companies lead the charge with two thrilling operas-in-concert at the Usher Hall.  

TICKETS for Edinburgh International festival 2026 now on sale - https://www.eif.co.uk

The battle of Culloden Confusions?

 

Confusion as there were Scots, Irish and European soldiers on each side. At this time in Scotland there were Whigs, or those that saw unionism as a modern, industrialing and progressive Britain and of exploiting the empire - and those that wanted to preserve Scots culture and voices. 

Unionists like Walter Scott thought we could somehow have both - to preserve this nostalgic Scotland lost and gone forever as he wrote in his novels and also support a supposed “union” with England. He tried to straddle both. 

Scotland’s nationalism was very unique at this time, crossing over to a modern state after the union - while it was too early for any real democracy. According to respected political theorist Tom Nairn. 

Remember at this time only around 5% of land owning men had a vote. There were moves for reform and votes for all men. Robert Burns was a reformer and Jacobin! Even Scott supported the Jacobites as a youth until his father persuaded him for his career to support the union. The union of 1707 was deeply unpopular for its taxes etc. by the ordinary people who rioted in the streets at the time. 

Correcting Scotland’s history mistakes

 

So often, so many mistakes and errors of Scotland’s recorded histories are either ignored, or over written by the powers that be. In encyclopaedias the words Britain and England are conflated constantly – as they are often for Americans. Interchangeable terms, who don’t know their geography.

 

In the National,10 Feb 2026, there was an article on a book entitled: 

Queen James, the Life and Loves of Britain’s first King. 

 

Error! Britain did not come into existence until 1707 after the Union of the Parliaments.

James Stewart (1567-1603) was King of the 'kingdom of Scotland' -  and after the Union of the Crown, was king of both the 'kingdom of England' and the 'kingdom of Scotland'  from 1603 to 1625.  (James worked to encourage a Britain, to secure his position on the English throne no doubt (after the death fo Elizabeth Tudor of England.) 

 

The Scottish Parliament had sat for 200 years before this union – latterly sitting in St Giles.  

When I look back and read of the Scotland before union 1707, the once independent Scotland is a different country. Its a place of a confident trading nation, with the exchange of people and ideas across the continents – to Flanders Japan, the Americas. Historian Tom Devine says that Scotland has for centuries has long been an outward looking country. 

 

The Wars of Independence with Wallace and Bruce 1314, were in fact Wars of Succession, ad civil wars. Because before this Scotland had always been an independent nation! Scotland’s first king was Kenneth I was King of dal Raida (841-850) and King of the Picts (848-858)

From the time of the Scottish Reformation (1560- 1640)  Scotland’s scholars went to Paris university to study and to teach. Education was greatly encouraged for all young boys. Form 1750 to 1790 there was the Scottish enlightenment. Scots were part of the American founding fathers.

 

The Big Questions facing Scotland today are – is this is a union of two kingdoms supposedly, there therefore must be a route out of this failing union. 

Its time we pointed out these important and crucial errors, which happen constantly. Ignorance of the past does not help our views of the present realities or our futures. There is not enough history taught in schools across Britain -  compared to elsewhere. So that both sides of the border, people have more knowledge and understanding of the true histories of both Scotland and England.

Kenneth I

Olde England as Britain?

 

I picked up a Sunday Times magazine recently – and there was an article with the headline In Search of Olde England - under a photo of Olde England Morris dancers, which reviewed the book - Finding Albion Myth, Folklore, and the Quest for a Hidden Britain by Zakia Sewell. Sewell writes that she is the “least likely person to go searching for Olde England, or to give it its grown up name Albion.” 

She speaks of the ‘stale history” of Albion or England as Britain – but is she writing of an unreal “Britain” or the 4 nations of the UK? Perhaps stale because this 'Britain' she searches for is not real, not a country with a defined identity, and has no hinterland. Britain is actually four ancient nations!

I looked up the meaning of ‘Albion’, which is supposed to stand for ‘Britain’. Its no wonder many are confused, the terms England as Britain are interchangeable and the same. (On the very same page a respected Irish author spoke of Elizabeth as the Queen of England!) 

Most Americans interchange England and Britain, as meaning the same nation. Its hardly surprising as encyclopaedias, radio, tv and media articles and broadcasts do the very same thing! Where does this leave the other three nations of the UK? As mere regions of England/ Britain?  

Where on earth do the ancient nations of Scotland, Ireland and Wales fit into this narrative - with not one mention, as if their contribution, language, culture and music are of no significance. 

 

Sewell is searching for Britain as England’s “stale old island story” 

She feels there is wisdom to be found in tradition. In the Hebrides she visited Imbole, a Celtic festival to mark the winter solstice and spring equinox. She celebrated Samhaim in haunted York, and attended the Notting hill carnival.

Sewell’s love of urban music drew her to a career as a presenter on Radio Six music. Her father is Welsh and her mother from the Caribbean. 

She wants to counter balance the far rights use of the English flag, to follow Albion as Britain folk ways in order to resolve her mixed heritage. In the Caribbean Granadines, the locals have long played down folk practices of the ‘other world’ such as ritual dance or drumming, not wanting to appear backward. This is colonization of the mind, were language was used to suppress different cultures. And the portrayal of local cultures as less worthy or “backward.”

 

England as a nation certainly appears to have lost is sense of itself – it still has its Constitution of 1688, castles, monarchy, Tudors - all from !600s. but with London now being a melting pot, I’m not sure – what is England/ Britain’s, national identity, lost in this empire building, what is its national costume? Or national sense of itself outside of football or the red cross of St George? 

 

Britain is in fact a landmass, not a country. Britain only came into existence after the union of the parliaments in 1707. But what is Britain or UK as a country? It is not a country with any hinterland or sense of itself – apart from the world war one and the Victorian empire. But the British empire is bland and about elitism and barely taught in schools, even as the empire existed for many centuries and shaped how this Britain as England sees itself.

 

She claims there are signs of a “weird renaissance” bubbling in Britain as England, but her grasp of historical context is severely missing, as she skims the mere surface here. I guess she is searching for a lost 'England as Britain'. In urban London much culture is a cosmopolitan world culture – as heard in the Americanisation of the Brits award show, in London Pop culture and elsewhere. 

 

In this narrative there is not one mention of Scotland, Ireland or Wales – as if they don’t even exist or have any relevance or impact. Ignorance of history in this ‘Albion’ is clearly deep rooted.

England as Britain urgently needs to move from being an archaic state to a modern one – one that no longer controls and exploits an empire. 

“Scotland is a country NOT a county!”! Alex Salmond

 

**BOOKS*: For a deeper history of Scots and Celtic cultures I recommend 

Stuart McHardy’ Scotland’s Future History, 

Tom Devine, A Scottish Nation 1707 to present

Alan Raich - Arts of the Nation

Only Britain has Peerage Privilege

 

Britain is the only nation that continues to revere and believe in a hierarchy with the monarch at the top? In Great Britain, nobility and titles are part of the peerage, which is a social class of titled people who have certain privileges: share in the responsibility of government and can avoid taxes. 

Andrews recent fall from grace,- symptomatic of the entitlement and superiority of royalty, creates serious division and a fake hierarchy with the King or Queen at the top, which only encourages undeserving elites, private school education and a 2-teir system in society that holds many many children back. These elites form networks of privilege who help each other out. 

 

All this therefor holds the country back, as Finland discovered and banned private school education  in – Finland has the best education in the world. How’s that for what some may call a small nation with few resources! So hereditary privilege does matter – it hold Britain back. 

The British House of Lords is the second biggest unelected second chamber in the world, after China! Britain’s archaic constitution of 1690. Britain is an outlier in Europe – the only nation that continues to give nobility privileges such as tax avoidance. Britain urgently needs to move to becoming  a modern state. 

**The five ranks of British nobility, in descending order of precedence, are:

 

·       Duke: The highest and most exclusive rank

·       Marquess: The second most senior rank

·       Earl: The third rank

·       Viscount: The fourth rank

·       Baron: The lowest rank 

 

Titles can be hereditary or granted. Until 1999, peers were exempt from jury duty and entitled to sit in the House of Lords. 

 

Other European countries abolished nobility privileges. First was France in 1789, followed by Holland and Denmark in 1857. And then in 1919 Germany and Austria removed nobility privileges.  

 

 

First was *France – There is no nobility, its legal status was abolished 1789, while there are titles still but with no privileges attached.   

There is no such thing as nobility in France today. French courts have held that the concept of nobility is incompatible with the equality of all citizens before the law proclaimed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, part of the Constitution of 1958. There are titles, which are considered part of the legal name, and entitled to the same protections in French civil and criminal courts, even though they give no privilege or precedence (the way they do in Great Britain). Regulation of titles is carried out by a bureau of the Ministry of Justice. The President has ceased to confer or confirm titles, but the French state still verifies them,  civil courts can protect them, criminal courts can prosecute their abuse.

History - 

1.     the abolition of feudalism and privileges in 1789, which did away with the legal status of nobility,

2.     the restoration of titles in 1808 by Napoleon, and their confirmation by the successive monarchical regimes until 1870

3.     the fact that the successive republican regimes have never passed any laws on the subject of titles.

The French Revolution did away with nobility and titles, titles were restored (not nobility), and the Republic has not done anything about titles. French nobiliary law is mostly based on court cases. At present, titles have not been abolished. The final establishment of a Republic in 1875 left them in a kind of limbo, and it took a succession of court cases to define the jurisprudence, which is now well established. 

(2) * Denmark - The Danish constitution of 1849 stripped the nobility of its privileges, though the titles remained.  History - The Danish nobility was granted social, economic, and political privileges in the 16th century in exchange for their military service to the king. Some of the families still own and reside in castles or country houses. A minority of nobles still belong to the elite and they can be guests at royal events, are objects of media coverage, for example Kanal 4s TV hostess Caroline Fleming née Baroness Luel-Brockdorff. Some of them own and manage companies or have leading positions within business, banking, diplomacy and NGOs.

(3) *Holland – After Constitutional reform 1848 the privileges of the Dutch nobility were abolished and they lost their constitutional roles. The only privileges that were allowed were titles and coats of arms. They became civilians with a noble title. Nobility became a small elite class consisting of families recognized as noble, and with or without a title in the Kingdome of the Netherlands

(4) *Germany  - Abolished the legal recognition of nobility in 1919, while titles are still used. The Weimar Constitution of 1919 removed legal privileges and disadvantages of birth or rank. Current status - Titles of nobility are only valid as part of a name and may no longer be conferred.August 1919, at the beginning of Weimer Republic (1918 – 1933) Germany's new constitution abolished royalty and nobility, and the respective legal privileges and immunities appertaining to an individual, a family or any heirs. Today, German nobility is no longer conferred by the Federal Republic of Germany (1949–present), and constitutionally the descendants of German noble families do not enjoy legal privileges. The Nobility of the German Empire was similar to nobility of the Austrian empire developed during the Holy Roman Empire and both ended in 1919 when they were abolished, and legal status and privileges were revoked.

(5) *Austria - In 1919, Austrian nobility was abolished under the First Austrian Republic (1919–1934) and the and legal recognition of hereditary titles and aristocratic particles and use as part of surnames was banned. Today, Austrian nobility is no longer conferred by the Republic of Austria(1945–present), and the official use of noble titles, is a minor offence under Austrian law for Austrian citizen.