Cassilis

So, the Economist thinks Scotland (or in particular Edinburgh) is insufficiently proud of one of its most famous sons, Adam Smith:

"This indifference to one of Scotland's greatest sons in the city where he spent much of his adult life is curious, but consistent. His house, recently a municipal centre for troubled boys, has a small, tarnished bronze plaque recording it as the town house of the Earls of Panmure and the home of Adam Smith. His grave just off the High Street was overgrown until 2006 when, thanks to £10,000 from an expatriate Scottish oilman, it was cleaned; visitors still have to hunt for it. This disregard stems more from modern Scottish politics than from historical ignorance. Smith's most famous work, “The Wealth of Nations”, which describes wealth creation in a competitive commercial economy dominated by the market's invisible hand, has long been appropriated by right-wingers and anathema in left-leaning Scotland."

The article highlights recent efforts by the left to appropriate Smith to their cause but the explanation holds some truth. The blunt facts are Smith's infamous 'invisible hand' has, of late, been more inclined skelp the Scots violently on the back of their collective nut than redistribute any wealth in their direction. But perhaps there's something else at play in our attitude to Smith.

National pride is a strange and often irrational thing – happy to the stress the best among one’s fellow countrymen without giving due credence to their failings or those that fall short. There's a myopia that kicks in with nationalism where people can't see past the glories of their own. I like to think Scottish national pride has a bolder streak of realism running through it. We are, of course, fiercely proud of our heritage but not so blinded by its highs that we lose all perspective or shrink from criticism when appropriate. Following the fortunes of the national football team is the most obvious manifestation of this and it's not unknown when Scotland are nearing the end of a particularly heavy defeat for the Tartan Army to cheer their opponents in full throated irony.

The reaction to Adam Smith is no different - we recognise his contribution to political thought but that doesn't put him beyond criticism or make him without flaw. We see this in other areas too - we gave the world Burns, Scott and RL Stevenson but that doesn’t excuse the imposition of Irvine Welsh, we proudly champion Mackintosh, Peploe and Fergusson but can’t escape responsibility for Vettriano. And where Rod Stewart was once a great rock'n'roll front man we now recognise his status as third-rate lounge act in an ill-fitting suit and bad haircut and we're sorry. For me these are signs of a healthy & grounded nationalism, rooted in a realistic understanding of our place in the world.