History teachers in Scotland are feeling vulnerable. A curriculum review is leading to debates about history's place in schools--will it or should it be a statutory part of Scotland's curriculum for 11-14 year olds? Many of the concerns in Sam Henry's article will ring true for teachers throughout the United Kingdom. The obvious discrepancy between the amount of time given to history in the curriculum and the importance that many ascribe to it (for example, to foster particular values, explore notions of identity, develop an understanding and appreciation of our heritage and so forth) is just as apparent south of the border as north. And that is not where the parallels end. Henry is worried about providing headteachers with more flexibility in the curriculum. Could they use this flexibility to marginalise history in favour of "easier" subjects? This may remind history teachers in England of the challenges some of us face in teaching Key Stage 3 in two years. The suggestion in Scotland that history might remain in the curriculum, but under a different name, echoes proposals in Northern Ireland to subsume history within "Environment and society". It may be the case that this does not represent any threat to the integrity of the subject, but we could hardly be blamed for fearing as much in the current climate. On a more positive note, however, there is, and has always been, an interest in the history curriculum from politicians and the general public. We may be frustrated by a lack of knowledge and understanding in these public debates, but there are at least debates in which we can engage and steer to aid our cause, as this article demonstrates.