77 LITERATURE
Luka Ličar
University of Ljubljana
Faculty of Arts, Slovenia
Literature of Scotland and Slovenia: From Devolution to  
Post-devolution, from Socialism to Independence and Beyond
Summary
 is article looks at the situation of nationalism a nd literature in both Scotland and Slovenia 
in the 1980s and onward until the present day.  In the case of Scotland the focus is on the 
devolution process and the literary renaissance which followed the failed referendum.  e focus 
is also on the post-devolution literature and the challenges it faces both in terms of retrospect 
and the future challenges. In Slovenia in the 1980s the main points are the role of literature 
and culture in the process of democratisation and the reimagining of literature to re'ect on the 
new situations. During this process comparisons as well as di erences between both nations 
are revealed and some are speci%cally pointed out. Finally, there are certain concepts of how 
literature can advance and also hinder the development of a nation, which should be taken into 
consideration in the future developments. 
Key words: Scotland, Slovenia, Devolution, Post-devolution, Nova revija, Mladina, 
Independence, Minority Literature
Literatura škotske in Slovenije: Od devolucije  
do post-devolucije, od socializma do neodvisnosti ter naprej  
Povzetek
Članek skuša vzeti v obzir stanje na Škotskem in v Sloveniji od osemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja 
do dandanašnjih dni. V primeru Škotske smo pozornost posvetili procesu devolucije in literarni 
renesansi, ki je sledila neuspelemu referendumu. T u je še poudarek na literaturi post-devolucije 
in izzivi, s katerimi se sooča, tako v smislu retrospektive kot tudi prihodnjih izzivov. Ko gre 
beseda o Sloveniji v osemdesetih so glavni poudarki na vlogi literature in kulture v procesu 
demokratizacije ter ponovnem osmišljanju literature, da ustrezno odseva novonastale situacije. 
Skozi ta proces se razkrijejo nekatere primerjave kot tudi razlike med obema narodoma. Na 
koncu je vplogled še v nekatere idejne zasnove, ki bi jih veljajo podrobneje raziskati. 
Ključne besede: Škotska, Slovenija, devolucija, post-devolucija, Nova revija, Mladina, 
neodvisnost, manjšinska literatura  
UDK 821.111(411).091”198/201”:821.163.6.091”198/201”
DOI: 10.4312/elope.8.1.77-87
78 Luka Ličar Literature of Scotland and Slovenia: From Devolution to Post-devolution, from Socialism to Independence and Beyond
Literature of Scotland and Slovenia: From Devolution to  
Post-devolution, from Socialism to Independence and Beyond
1. Introduction
 e United Kingdom and Yugoslavia in the nineteen ei ghties – both can be described as a 
collective of nations, cultures and identities packed into an overarching super-state. In the 
case of Yugoslavia it was a Socialist Federal Republic, while the United Kingdom remains a 
constitutional monarchy.  e intent of this article is to focus on only two parts of these super-
states, namely Scotland and Slovenia, and to deal with a speci%c situation and time period, where 
literature, or culture in general, met with a political situation.  ese situations will be analysed 
and put into perspective from the viewpoint of both Slovenia and Scotland, while dealing with 
speci%c elements unique to each, which will be compared when so appropriate. 
Initially it may seem like a long stretch to compare two nations which at %rst glance seem so 
unalike and indeed were in di erent political situa tions at the time.  e core of the perceived 
problem, however, was quite the same in both Slovenia and Scotland.  at problem was – and 
perhaps still is – how to maintain a national identity and culture in a country which is primarily 
opposed to such an idea, since one of the main points of its existence is to promote the idea 
of a single nation, more often than not quite irrespective of the personal aims of some of the 
people living therein. In Yugoslavia it was to be Yugoslavian, irrespective of the fact that the 
person originated from Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina or 
Slovenia. In the United Kingdom it was to be British, regardless of which part of the Kingdom 
or its colonies the person came from. Literature is a strong pillar in any state, one which tries 
to preserve or empower its national identity and, therefore, also one which is often pressured or 
sometimes even misused to that very end. In the %rst part of this paper, the focus is on Scotland, 
from a political and cultural viewpoint; this it will be followed by the situation in Yugoslavia and 
Slovenia.  e %nal part deals with similarities but also unique elements of both, including the 
concluding thoughts.
2. Devolution and Post-devolution in Scotland
Devolution was an ongoing process in Scotland, Ireland and also Wales, the main idea was to 
slowly decentralise the government in Westminster and in the process grant more independence 
to various parts of the United Kingdom.  e referend um on devolution in Scotland took place 
in 1979 and failed. Even though the majority was in favour, the devil was in the details, a 
clause added to the bill made all the di erence. Pe ter Kravitz, the editor of #e Picador Book of 
Contemporary Scottish Literature, explains it in a nutshell:
In March 1979 the people of Scotland were asked whether they wanted their own 
parliament separate from England.  e majority said yes. However, a last minute clause 
added to the bill stated that 40 per cent of the total electorate had to be in favour.  is 
took non-voters to be saying no. Governments get elected on less. (Kravitz 1997)
79 LITERATURE
 rough this failure, Scottish national politics too k a serious blow.  e political option essentially 
failed Scotland or at least that was the general thought at the time.  is, however, proved to be an 
opportunity for literature to experience a so called renaissance.  e Irish-Scottish writer Donal 
McLaughlin, who himself experienced this period in the fullest, has this to say on the situation:
 e renaissance, it is often suggested, had its root in political setbacks. In the wake of 
both the failed referendum on devolution in March 1979 & Margaret  atcher becoming 
Prime Minister in May that year, Scotland’s writers – like their %lm-maker, painter & 
musician colleagues – invested in their art, rather than succumb to the double whammy 
delivered by the political arena.
 e very considerable fruits of the artists’ respons e to this state of a airs soon gave rise 
to the theory that Scotland had achieved cultural (if not political) independence. Politics, 
Cairns Craig even suggested, had been reduced to a mere side-show in Scotland. 
(McLaughlin 2008, 4) 
Literature replaced politics in Scotland’s most desperate time of need. Scotland approached 
identity-building from the viewpoint of culture and to form an opposition to the predominantly 
British concept of the unity of all the nations living within Great Britain. While Scotland has 
had a great number of turbulent times throughout history it also produced some of the most well 
known and %nest writers in the world. When one mentions Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, 
with his famous lodgings in 221B Baker Street in London, Scotland somehow does not seem to 
%t in the picture. Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe deals with Saxon noble families and the protagonist, 
William of Ivanhoe, is also Saxon. R.L. Stevenson’s Treasure Island tells of the high seas and exotic 
locations. Of course, they also wrote about Scotland – many of Sir Walter Scott’s novels take 
place in Scotland, Robert Louis Stevenson’s famous novel Kidnapped is also set in Scotland and 
yet these Scottish authors published mostly in England.  e reasons for that are fairly simple, 
England, more speci%cally London, was the cultural centre.  e British Empire stretched across 
the globe and the idea of being British was heavily advertised. “ e two largest nations, Scotland 
and England, came together in 1707, but as commentators are becoming acutely aware this did 
not result in a British civil society” (Morton 1999, 6). 
 is union was a political construct, and to project the sense of ‘unity’, Crawford explains:
T o play a full part, Scottish people would have to move from using Scots to using English, 
an English, which was fully acceptable to the dominant partner in the political union. 
 is English, it was argued, both had to replace Sco ts and had to be purged of what 
we would now call ‘markers of Scottish cultural di  erence’, purged of Scotticisms.  e 
growing wish for a ‘pure’ English in eighteen century Scotland was not an anti-Scottish 
gesture, but a pro-British one. If Britain were to work as a political unit, then Scots should 
rid themselves of any elements, likely to impede their progress within it. Language, the 
most important of bonds, must not be allowed to hinder Scotland’s intercourse with 
expanding economic and intellectual markets in the freshly de%ned British state.
(Crawford 2001, 18) 
80 Luka Ličar Literature of Scotland and Slovenia: From Devolution to Post-devolution, from Socialism to Independence and Beyond
Language, and through it literature, were subjected to the idea of unity.  ere were, however, 
also other factors, which helped promote the idea of being British.  is continued well into the 
twentieth century:
 e Second World War had witnessed the extensive use of government propaganda to 
shore up British identity and the fact that half a million Scots were integrated with other 
individuals from the United Kingdom in the armed forces helped reinforce a sense of 
Britishness.  e English were no longer stereotypes or caricatures, but serving comrades, 
and the fact that many Scots were stationed in England helped to introduce them to their 
fellow-countrymen and –women. (Finlay 2002, 8-9)
After 1979, the failed referendum and the rise of Margaret  atcher, “which seemed then to be 
cementing Scotland’s subnational status for good” (Schoene 2007, 8), there were also positive 
results as it “only induced the Scottish People to pull in more closely together and develop a more 
clearly de%ned and morally superior sense of national identity” (ibid., 8).  is brought about 
the renaissance of Scottish literature. Schoene also refers to this literature as the ‘devolutionary 
Scottish writing’, and it encompasses the works which were produced and published in the time 
period between the two referendums, the %rst one, which failed in 1979, and the second successful 
referendum in 1997.  is was the period saw the work s of authors such as Ian Crichton Smith, 
William McIlvanney, James Kelman, Janice Galloway and many others.  ey sought to put 
Scottish literature and Scotland on the world map, strengthen the Scottish identity and create a 
distinctive voice, the voice of Scotland. With themes that dealt with the troubles of the common 
people, often set in bleak suburban settings, these authors “challenge limits of language, gender, 
received history, and authority, be it in law, education, religion. Scottish %ction – and indeed 
Scottish writing generally – is now more varied in mood, more eclectic, and more willing to 
challenge Scotland’s traditional beliefs and values than ever before” (Gi ord 2002, 980). 
If the period of devolutionary Scottish writing was marked by an empowerment of the Scottish 
identity through the use of colloquial language, Gaelic expressions, local colour and situations 
speci%c to Scotland, there is also usually an opposing thought.  e dangers of nationalism, 
which include also the fact that literature can become limited and that the scope in which it can 
operate “was always, of necessity, politically informed, or at least it was received and critiqued 
that way, and only considered a success if it made – or could be construed as making – some kind 
of case for Scotland” (Schoene 2007, 7).  is raises the question of self-censorship. If the literary 
works authors produce are automatically judged against certain restrictions or prerequisites, even 
if these are merely presupposed, would they not cause the authors to gravitate towards operating 
within those limits? Schoene dedicates a large part of his text to this very question or whether the 
literature that was produced during the period of devolutionary Scottish writing had a speci%c 
purpose of promoting Scottishness and if that role is in some ways ful%lled by reintroducing the 
Scottish Parliament in 1999 and a successful transfer of power from Westminster to Edinburgh, 
what becomes of literature and can it be freed from the burden of nationalism? “Clearly, one 
task for critics of contemporary Scottish literature is to determine whether after devolution 
‘Scottishness’ still remains a useful quality marker, viable identity descriptor, or suitable criterion 
for gauging the canonical eligibility of an author or text” (ibid., 8). Schoene then refers to 
81 LITERATURE
literature produced after 1999 as the post-devolutionary Scottish writing.  is kind of shift was 
anticipated by other authors in the past. Gi ord pr edicts it in Scottish Literature in English and 
Scots: “Perhaps a necessary part of this will be that Scottish writers become less ‘Scottish’ and that 
their writing will take on a ‘post-nationalist’ tone. If that is a feature that Scottish writers will 
share with other world writers, and if it is combined with an awareness of the past, then it is a 
development to be welcomed” (Gi ord 2002, 1000). 
One of the more signi%cant elements in the post-devolutionary Scottish writing is the input and 
creativity of various ethnic groups within Scotland. Numerous works are being created by writers 
who come from intermixed ethnic backgrounds and communities, since modern Scotland is 
de%nitely multi-ethnic.  ey o er a wider range of w hat post-devolutionary Scottish literature 
can be, a literature that is not limited to being ‘nationalistic’, by incorporating their experiences 
and perceptions of the world they live in and also by re'ecting the social aspects that cannot 
be covered by, as Gi ord states, the members of the traditional Scottish community. Schoene 
elaborates further: 
Scottish nationalism has e ectively ceased to be a minoritarian counterdiscourse, raising 
manifold questions regarding Scotland’s internal interdependencies and alliances. 
Post-devolution Scotland evidently holds postethnic potential mainly due to its relatively 
'exible views on what constitutes a Scottish person, as detailed by its civic citizenship 
legislation, which values an individual’s choice of residency as highly as their familial 
descent. (Schoene 2007, 10)
Literature in Scotland gains new strengths and becomes more eclectic as the voices of these 
minorities are heard. It also helps to move the Scottish literature away from a period, which was 
limiting in its scope and served only a certain purpose. Writers, such as Jackie Kay, of Scottish-
Nigerian descent, Eugenie Fraser, a Russian Scottish writer, Raymond Soltysek, David Daiches 
and many others are just a few of these emerging voices which will carry on the literature of 
Scotland in the new millennia. Suhayl Saadi tells us in his In$nite Diversity in New Scottish 
Writing:
We are dealing with people who have never known anything other than a multicultural 
society (and I’m talking here about Scottish writers from both Majority and Minority 
Ethnic groups). Scotland has actually always been a polyglot – but today perhaps it is 
simply that it is more visibly so.
In a way, it’s a kind of collective identity crisis. Scots are a minority ethnic group within 
Britain.  e English are a Minority Ethnic group in Scotland. We are all Minority Ethnic 
communities in the world. (Saadi 2010)
Contemporary literature seems to be holding its own as the turbulent years of the previous 
century have passed by; numerous young writers continue to emerge and contribute to the 
Scottish literature cannon. Looking for new challenges and new opportunities, Scottish literature 
tries to rise over the self imposed boundaries of devolutionary writing and is trying to rediscover 
its most basic premises of representing Scotland in all its forms in the contemporary world. 
82 Luka Ličar Literature of Scotland and Slovenia: From Devolution to Post-devolution, from Socialism to Independence and Beyond
Yet there are some who look at the critical side of devolution. “Following devolution, both Scottish 
critics and creative writers began to issue reminders that Scotland’s assumed moral superiority as 
a victim of historical circumstances must not be permitted to persist uninterrogated” (Schoene 
2007, 2). Schoene continues to elaborate that Scotland’s part in the British imperial enterprises, 
such as colonisation or complicity in the slave trade as is disclosed in the award-winning novel 
Joseph Knight (2003) by James Robertson.  ere is also the fact t hat too many perceive devolution 
as simply a matter of Scotland, the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales while many 
forget that England is also a part of the puzzle. One of the fears is that devolution might exculpate 
the former British nations of historical accountability for colonial violence. Last but not least, 
there is the fact of long historical and economic ties of Scotland with England. Post-devolution 
brings responsibilities along with more freedom.
3. From Yugoslavia to Slovenia 
Slovenia o<cially declared independence in June 1991. While Slovenia in the onset of the 
eighties was still a part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, two events took place 
which shook the social circumstances on which Yugoslavia was based. Since literature was an 
inherent part of the social situation, it also had an impact on literary communications.  e 
two events were the death of Edvard Kardelj in 1979, the main ideologist of communism in 
Yugoslavia, and the death of Josip Broz-Tito in 1980, Marshal of Yugoslavia. As discussed by 
Marko Juvan in his article Iz 80. v 90. Leta: slovenska literatura, postmodernizem, postkomunizem 
in nacionalna država
1
, it signi%ed the collapse of the two main ideologies which were presented 
in the ideology of market socialism and its myth of a unique type of socialism and the ideology of 
south-Slav brotherhood, unity and equality.  eir ch arisma and presence in the consciousness of 
the people in Yugoslavia and their status as symbols of unity presented the main ties that bound 
the nations within the federation, and with their demise these ties began to loosen. 
One of the things that followed was the pull towards centralisation. In order to salvage the 
sinking ship that was Yugoslavia, centralisation was supposed to strengthen the failing concept of 
unity and lessen the harsh rhetoric between nations.  e consequence of such actions was that, 
as these concepts alluded to the solidarity of the working classes, they would also extend to the 
cultural and educational spheres.  e idea was to ha ve uni%ed educational centres, which would 
present a uni%ed curriculum of literature within Yugoslavia.  is meant an unfair situation in 
which Slovenian pupils would have a signi%cantly reduced amount of Slovene literature in their 
curriculums. An additional problem was the heavy taxation. “Slovenia, a republic within which 
lived 8.5 percent of the whole Yugoslavian national body, contributed approximately 20 percent 
of all its resources, while Belgrade still vehemently reproached it for sel%shness and abuse of 
poorer republics” (Balantič 2007).
2
 ese actions a<rmed the conviction that existence i n such a socialist federation would 
1
 From the 80s into the 90s: Slovene Literature, Postmodernism, Postcommunism and the National State. 
2
 Original Slovenian: Slovenija, republika, v kateri je živelo 8,5 odstotka celotnega jugoslovanskega državljanskega telesa, je v državni 
proračun prispevala kar okoli 20 odstotkov vseh sredstev, Beograd pa ji je še vedno vehementno očital sebičnost in izkoriščanje 
revnejših republik.
83 LITERATURE
eventually no longer be possible.  e eighties then saw the emergence of authors, intellectuals 
and collectives, who directed their actions to be more public and socially active and also more 
provocative. 
 e journal Nova revija (New Review) has its origins in the year 1982. It was published by a 
collective of liberal and conservative intellectuals.  ey were allowed to publish the Nova revija 
journal after a petition to the authorities of the then Socialist Republic of Slovenia, in which 
they explained the need for an independent critical journal, which was lacking in the cultural 
environment at the time.  e petition included a let ter signed by Tine Hribar, Niko Grafenauer, 
Andrej Inkret, Svetlana Makarovič, Boris A. Novak and Dimitrij Rupel. Over sixty cultural 
workers also signed the petition, and it was published in the national daily broadsheet Delo. Still, 
two years had to pass before the journal could see the light of day. It provided a voice necessary 
for the intellectuals and authors to express their ideas, which would culminate in the publication 
of the notorious volume 57 of Nova revija.  is issue declared an open proposal of the possib ility 
that Slovenia should become independent as one of the options for the future: 
In its 57
th
 issue, published under the title Contributions to the Slovenian National 
Programme, a number of Slovenian writers, poets, lawyers, sociologists and philosophers 
(mostly belonging to the Heideggerian circle) expressed concern about the ‘crisis’ (a label 
widely used to describe the situation in Yugoslavia in the 1980s) and discussed options 
available to the Slovenian nation. (Kramberger et al. 2008, 2)
However, there were other publications with a national political agenda in the Socialist Republic 
of Slovenia. Mladina was one such magazine. It was a magazine of the Slovenian Communist 
Party youth. In 1982 on the 11
th
 Congress of the Alliance of Socialist Youth of Slovenia a decision 
came to change Mladina, giving it additional editorial autonomy and it became one of the 
main oppositions to the regime in Slovenia. It was in a sense an internal opposition, since they 
originated from the same position and were able to expose political con'icts.
In 1984 the emergence of a controversial political art and music collective called NSK, or Neue 
Slowenische Kunst, added their part to the existing social circumstances.  rough provocative art, 
which used symbols derived from totalitarian regimes and music produced by arguably the most 
prominent part of NSK, Laibach, they managed to ridicule and challenge the powers and at the 
same time reach an audience beyond the boundaries of Yugoslavia. 
It was typical that the main artistic and political charges of the eighties were discharged 
especially through activities of the retrograde collective Neue Slowenische Kunst, which, 
through a uni%ed creative concept (‘art as a state’), saturated rock music, artistic collages 
and installations, poster designs, theatre and architecture. NSK, which in the second half 
of the eighties began a relatively striking march across Europe and the USA, as it was more 
radical and more total than, for instance, the Russian soc-art. It challenged the o<cial 
party politics (Slovenian and Yugoslavian), scandalised traditional artistic circles and the 
taste of supporters of modernism.
3
 (Juvan 1995, 6-7)
3
 Značilno je tudi, da so se poglavitni umetniški in politični naboji 80. let sproščali zlasti v dejavnosti retrogardistične skupine Neue 
slowenische Kunst, ki je z enotnim ustvarjalnim konceptom (‘umetnost kot država’) prežela rokovsko glasbo, likovne kolaže in insta-
84 Luka Ličar Literature of Scotland and Slovenia: From Devolution to Post-devolution, from Socialism to Independence and Beyond
 e literary and artistic movements in the period of eighties and beginning of nineties were 
marked by the changes in the social structure, the oncoming democratization of Slovenia and 
the advent of consumer society.  ese a ected the pe rceptions on the role of literature in our 
society. Marko Juvan puts forward two concepts of ideologies on the roles of Slovenian literature, 
inherited from the romantic and post-romantic periods, which fell to pieces.  e %rst one is the 
concept of domestic literature as “privileged or perhaps even the single institution, which – due 
to the missing political, economic, jurisdictional and cultural organisational forms – establishes, 
a<rms, keeps and develops the ‘non-historical’, stateless nation on the path to its emancipation; 
writers, not politicians or generals are in this view the nation’s consciousness, visionaries, leaders 
and victims, who are establishing the community
4
” (Juvan 1995, 2).  e second ideology is the 
“concept that literature or culture is the only authentic (and relatively tolerated by the authorities) 
reserve of an individual’s identity and freedom of thought, especially when all other ways of 
expressing political opinions and unwanted messages are disabled”
5
 (ibid.). 
 is departure from the old ideologies inescapably b rought along the change in roles that authors 
have in our society. Since there was a direct challenge to the authorities through the referendum 
on independence and also the %rst democratic elections, political content in literature was 
transposed into direct political discourse. Some of these authors later became co-creators of the 
new Slovenian state. Drago Jančar is one such example, who as the president of the Slovene PEN 
centre in the years between 1987 until 1991 made a signi%cant contribution to the independence 
of Slovenia. 
What about the younger generation of writers? Since the independence of Slovenia, literature 
had to rede%ne some of its roles. Due to the loss of a giant market in the former Yugoslavia, 
which also provided a common pool for intellectuals and authors to meet, publish and share 
their ideas and works in, there was really only one place to go – west.  e west presented – 
and still represents – a di erent kind of cultural and economic situation. Since Slovenia was 
now facing democracy and economic liberalisation, some of these e ects became evident also in 
authors and literature. 
 e market is, therefore, necessarily commercialised , dispersed over several smaller 
publishing houses, but is also becoming more 'exible and sensitive to the needs of readers. 
Due to such circumstances, the young writers especially have well secularised the concept 
of being an author: they do not comprehend it so much as a mission, but rather as a 
vocation, a skill, not only of writing, but also of recognition.
6
 (Ibid., 3) 
lacije, plakatno oblikovanje, gledališče in arhitekturo. Skupina NSK, ki je v 2. polovici 80. let začela razmeroma odmeven pohod po 
Evropi in ZDA, saj je bila radikalnejša in totalnejša od, recimo, ruskega soc-arta, je izzivala uradno partijsko politiko (Slovensko in 
Jugoslovansko), škandalizirala tradicionalistične umetnostne kroge in okus zagovornikov modernizma.
4
 Pojmovanje domače književnosti kot privilegirane ali celo edine ustanove, kida – zaradi manjkajočih političnih, gospodarskih, pravnih 
in kulturnih organizacijskih oblik – vzpostavlja, potrjuje, ohranja in razvija “nezgodovinski”, nedržavni narod na poti njegove emanci-
pacije; pisatelji, ne pa politiki ali vojskovodje so v tej luči narodova vest, vidci, voditelji in žrtve, ki vzpostavljajo skupnost;
5
 Predstava, da je leposlovje oz. umetnost edini pristni (in s strani oblasti še razmeroma tolerirani) rezervat posameznikove identitete 
ter mišljenjske svobode, zlasti kadar so druge poti za izražanje političnih mnenj in nezaželenih sporočil onemogočene.
6
 Ponudba se zato nujno komercializira, razpršuje po številnih manjših založbah, vendar pa postaja tudi bolj prožna in občutljiva za 
interese bralcev. Zaradi takšnih okoliščin so zlasti mladi pisatelji dodobra sekularizirali pojmovanje pisateljstva: ne dojemajo ga več 
(toliko) kot poslanstvo, temveč kot poklic, veščino, ne le pisanja, ampak tudi uveljavljanja.
85 LITERATURE
 ere are plenty of more marginalised types of texts , such as regional, dialectal literature and 
poetry, which receive surprisingly little attention despite the incredible richness of dialects and 
provincial life, folk tales and legends that can be found in Slovenia. Intellectual and cultural 
centres and institutions, which are usually positioned in larger urban areas, tend to give the 
impression of ignorance about or at least disinterest in such types of literature and poetry. If 
their voices are still waiting for su<cient recognition in Slovenian cultural consciousness, there is 
one marginalised category which took a long time to receive any spotlight at all, and that is the 
literature of minorities in Slovenia.  is trend was slightly reversed by the publication of Čefurji 
raus!
7
, a novel by Goran Vojnović.  e novel won the Preše ren Fund award and most recently, at 
the 25th Vilenica International Literary Festival, Vojnović received the Vilenica Crystal for the 
best contribution to the Vilenica Almanac after he read an excerpt from Čefurji raus!. Additional 
exposure for minority literature in Slovenia is also the many contributions within the UNESCO 
World Book Capital Ljubljana programme, one of them being the BuQve project, which deals 
with the LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, transsexual, intersexual and queer) themes. 
 e fact that Ljubljana was the World Book Capital f rom April 23
rd
 2010 until April 23
rd
 of 2011 
gives recognition to and a nod towards the e orts a nd attempts of post-independence literature 
and the book industry in Slovenia. Despite this, there is still much to be done and although the 
book market is small and the chances of larger recognition minuscule, the language and culture 
still o er in%nite possibilities that can and have to reach even farther beyond the received notions 
and borders of what we now perceive as literature ‘proper’.
4. Conclusion
T rying to compare two nations and cultures, which seem so far apart geographically, in terms 
of language and history would seem a daunting task, yet there are as many similarities as there 
are di erences. Both Scotland and Slovenia found th emselves in a similar situation at end of 
the seventies and the beginning of eighties. Politically, they both tried to achieve a greater deal 
of independence. In the case of Scotland it was to gain more power in decision-making and 
restoring its parliament through devolution and in the end to establish a form of home rule. 
 e failure of the referendum and subsequent rise to power of the conservative party headed by 
Margaret  atcher consolidated the centralist tenden cies in Britain. Scotland turned to culture 
and literature as a way of rea<rming their identity and to %nd their voice; the publication of 
Lanark: A Life in Four Books by Alasdair Gray in 1981 was crucial and “his work has been 
credited with spurring a renaissance in Scottish literature” (James Procter, 2008). In Slovenia, 
the beginning of the eighties was preceded by the deaths of two most in'uential %gures in 
Yugoslavia at the time, Josip Broz-Tito and Edvard Kardelj. Similarly, the centralist tendencies 
arose as the socialist republic was trying to reassert itself.  e literature and cultural circles in 
Slovenia actively started to get involved with the political situation in Slovenia.  rough the 
inception of the Nova revija journal and the opposition voiced through the Mladina magazine, 
political elements and voices became predominant.   ese intellectual circles later gave rise to 
7
 In Vojnović’s novel, the word ‘čefur’ denotes a specific minority within Slovenia, often hailing from the former states of Yugoslavia and 
the term frequently carries a derogatory meaning; ‘čefurji’ is the plural version. A possible translation, since an official translation of 
the title is not yet available, could be Čefurji get out!. 
86 Luka Ličar Literature of Scotland and Slovenia: From Devolution to Post-devolution, from Socialism to Independence and Beyond
many people who helped develop national programmes and legislations.  e result was the 
independent democratic Republic of Slovenia. 
While Scotland has an abundance of critical literature that deals with devolution and the later 
post-devolution, in Slovenia there is a general lack of relevant literature for the period of the 1980s 
and onwards. According to Kramberger et al., some of this can be attributed to the general regard 
of Slovenia’s process of achieving independence as a success story, especially when considering the 
other nations within Yugoslavia. Just as Scotland was a part of the British Empire so was Slovenia 
irrevocably a part of Yugoslavia. At the same time it played a key part in Yugoslavia’s dissolution. 
It is something for the future writers to consider. 
Only recently have books dealing speci%cally with Slovenia’s early phase of the exit from 
communism been appearing, yet they still remain scarce and – apart from a handful of 
articles in collective volumes – fail to provide a critical examination of ethno-nationalist 
conceptions of state and territory and their gradual rise throughout the late 1980s. 
Historians are particularly reluctant to treat these issues; if they do address them, they 
tend to avoid labelling various phenomena in Slovenia as nationalist, stressing that they 
were simply reactions to Serbian hegemony. (Kramberger et al. 2008, 7)
Bearing in mind the new developments also in the minority literature, be it from ex-Yugoslav 
immigrants, LGBTIQ elements, dialectal-provincial, minorities within or just beyond our 
borders or any other voice that functions, lives and operates in Slovenia and can thus be heard, 
Slovenia should continue to expand its literary horizon, while also bearing in mind its history 
and heritage, for better or worse.  ere is always t he danger of writers becoming complacent, 
not exploring new possibilities, themes and especially there is the fear of avoiding certain subjects 
and self-censorship.  ere is subject matter, such a s the entire process and the circumstances of 
Slovenia’s independence that has so far received far too little attention from authors and is quite 
crucial to understanding our own history as well as an important pillar for future writers to build 
upon. It needs to be approached from a neutral viewpoint to ensure a bias-free retrospective on 
that period of time. 
Scotland is already looking beyond the literary con%nes of devolution. “It is imperative that post-
devolution Scotland cease once and for all to identify itself in opposition to all things English; not 
only were the histories of the nations intimately entwined for almost 300 years, they continue to be 
so” (Scheone 2007, 2).  ere are certainly many fami liar aspects in development of literature and 
identity in the two nations and the way the 1980s moved on to the new millennia and beyond. 
With the knowledge of what lies behind and the possibilities of the future, both Scotland and 
Slovenia have the potential and the means to continue developing their cultures and literature. 
 e Canongate Wall, positioned under the Canongate b uilding in the Scottish parliamentary 
complex, has quotations inscribed onto pieces of rock imbedded into the wall. One of the quotes, 
belonging to the famous Scottish writer Alasdair Gray, has this to say: “Work as if you live in the 
early days of a better nation.” It is a statement that should be heeded; both Slovenia and Scotland 
need to continue to try and better themselves also through culture and literature and not rest on 
the laurels of complacency. 
87 LITERATURE
Bibliography
Balantič, P. 2007. Zakaj sploh 57. številka Nove revije? [On-line]. Available: http://www.rtvslo.si/kultura/drugo/zakaj-sploh-57-
stevilka-nove-revije/151279 (16 September 2010)
Brown, I. ed. 2007. The Edinburgh History of Scottish Literature Volume Three: Modern Transformations: New Identities (from 
1918). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 
Crawford, R. 2001. Devolving English Literature. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Dunn, D. ed. 2001. The Oxford Book of Scottish Short Stories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gifford, D., S. Dunnigan, and A. MacGillivray, eds. 2002. Scottish Literature In English and Scots. Edinburgh: Edinburgh 
University Press.
Harvie, C. 2002. Scotland: A Short History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Juvan, M. 1995. Slovenska literatura, postmodernizem, postkomunizem in nacionalna država: iz 80. v 90. leta. In XXXI. seminar 
slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture, ed. M. Orožen, 123–39. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za slovanske jezike 
in književnosti. 
Klemenčič, I. 2003. Več kot le revija. Mladina, 4, 52–3.
Kramberger, T., S. Mihelj, and B.D. Rotar. 2008. Representation of the Nation and of the Other in the Slovenian Periodical Press 
Before and After 1991: Engagements and Implications. [On-line] Available:http://www.theslovenian.com/articles/2008/
kramberger.pdf (18 September 2010)
Kravitz, L. ed. 1997. Galloway Archive: Guest Essays. As It Never Was [On-line]. Available: http://www.galloway.1to1.org/Kravitz.
html (19 July 2008) 
Lambert, M. ed. 2008. Discovering Scottish Literature: A Contemporary Overview. Edinburgh: Scottish Book Trust. 
Morton, G. 1999. Unionist Nationalism: Governing Urban Scotland, 1830-60. Tuckwell Press.
Thomson, A. 2007. International Journal of Scottish Literature. ‘You can’t get there from here’: Devolution and Scottish Literary 
History [On-line]. Available: http://www.ijsl.stir.ac.uk/issue3/thomson.htm (1 Aug. 2010) 
Procter, J. 2008. Contemporary Writers. Alasdair Gray [On-line]. Available : http://www.contemporarywriters.com/
authors/?p=auth43 (21 April 2011)
RoyChowdhury, S., and D. McLaughlin, eds. 2008. On Writers & Writing I Wouldn’t Be Without. SAMPARK Journal of Global 
Understanding SCOTLAND the edge is everywhere, no. 10: 1–9.
Saadi, S. 2010.The Association for Scottish Literary Studies. Infinite Diversity in New Scottish Writing [On-line]. Available:  
http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/scotlit/asls/SSaadi.html (16 September 2010) 
Schoene, B., ed. 2007. The Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Scottish Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.