Rather than enter into a debate about the merits of independence for the Scottish, I thought I would share with you, dear reader, why the two countries were joined (the crowns having effectively been joined 100 years earlier on the succession of James I/VI), to put the debate in a historical context. It happened for two principal reasons - the succession crisis and the economic crisis.
A succession crisis
The monarch of the time, Queen Anne, did not have any surviving children and so the English Parliament passed the Act of Settlement 1701, which forbade the crown from passing to a Catholic, providing that on the death of Anne the monarch should be Electress Sophia of Hanover, a granddaughter of James I, or her descendants. Unfortunately, the Scottish Parliament, passed the Act of Security 1704, which stated that, on the death of Anne, Parliament would decide who her successor should be from the descendants of the Scottish kings. This person would not be the English successor unless various economic, political and religious conditions were met. England was therefore worried that, without a shared monarch, Scotland might ally against it, and passed the Alien Act 1705, which placed heavy economic sanctions on Scots’ property, unless it entered negotiations to end the crisis. But would the Scottish bow to such blatant blackmail? Economic pressures meant it had to.
The economic crisis
Scotland (through the Company of Scotland) became involved with the Darién scheme, a plan to establish a colony on the Isthmus of Panama in the hope of establishing trade with the Far East. The Company raised 400,000 pounds sterling in a few weeks, with investments from every level of society, and totaling roughly a third of the wealth of Scotland. The colony, however, failed, and the government became massively in debt.
What happened next?
After negotiation, the two countries passed their respective Acts of Union and on the 1st May 1707 the Kingdom of Great Britain came into existence. The Scottish debt was covered by the English and the succession was secured in line with the Act of Settlement.
What does this say about today?
Great Britain wasn’t formed out of any feeling of brotherhood or shared values between the two nations, but out of simple necessity. It sprang from a fear that an independent Scotland might crush the British in alliance with the French or Spanish. It was pushed through because of an ill-planned venture which almost bankrupted the Scottish government. Both of these factors are no longer present today and serious thought should be given to whether the union is really relevant.
* And Wales
** England passed its Union with Scotland Act in 1706, Scotland passed the Union with England Act in 1707 and they came into effect on 1st May 1707.
Loading ...
3 responses so far ↓
1 Tristan // Jan 17, 2007 at 1:00 pm
People don’t realise that. They think it was some noble gesture - then of course the English fell for the whole British thing…
The Union has had many benefits - including helping the Scottish enlightenment - where would be without that?
I approach the Union with ambivalence - I don’t particularly care either way, but I do think that Scotland and Wales should have Home Rule (one wonders if this will cause similar problems to those that Home Rule in Ireland caused the Liberals to other parties).
2 Jackart // Jan 23, 2007 at 9:38 am
Of my 4 Grandparents, 2 Spoke Scots Gaelic as a first Language. One Great Grandfather was Welsh. I have an Irish Surname. I was Born and Brought up in England.
I am not English. I am British. Of Course the Union is Relevant. 10% of the Scots population is English. 40% of scots do not live in Scotland.
Whatever the history, We are no longer seperate, whatever the rump of statist, nationalist parochial scots who live there think.
3 aedis // Nov 19, 2008 at 4:15 am
Its true the Scottish nobles (and parliamentarians) were massively out of pocket after Darien.
The English passed a law refusing any English finance make its way north.
The Spanish were also against the Scots plan.
A successful colony on Panama would mean the Scots would have control of access between the Atlantic and Pacific and a strategic foothold to expand north and south.
Its also true that it was in England’s interest that the Act of Union proceeded; for the reasons you specified and the fact that historically Scotland tended to side with France in the Auld Alliance. It thus remained a military threat to England.
Its not true that Scotland had to ratify the Act of Union due to bankrupty.
Most Scots didn’t want the Act of Union.
Unfortunately the majority of Scottish Parliamentarians were offered bribes and inducements to pass the Act. Other more principled Parliamentarians like Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun eloquently argued against the Union. Unfortunately the bribes worked.
This led to Robert Burns’ famous phrase:
‘Bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation’
The Act of Union led to riots in Scotland, and those Parliamentarians who voted for it were in fear for their lives.
St. Giles Cathedral rang out the lament ‘Why should I be so sad on this my wedding day?’.
Tristan, the Scottish Enlightenment may well have happened without the Union, its now obviously difficult to tell. One of the main reasons for the Scottish Enlightenment was the high standard of the Scottish education system; a system started by John Knox when Scotland was independent.
Jackart, of course, Scotland has emigrated much of its peoples.
But the future of Scotland should be decided by those that live there. That should be the only criteria.
No matter what nationality.
Its absurd to state that nationalists are parochial. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I think the statement that bests sums up the pro-independence movement is that famous quote of Winnie Ewing’s:
‘Stop the world! Scotland wants to get on!’
Its about having representation at the highest level, and having foreign policy that suits Scotland - not illegal wars or having WMDs on its soil.
Its about being a country like every other.
Its about having the economic levers to run the economy in its own interest, not in the interest of London.
Remember Eddie George, former Governor of the Bank of England:
‘Unemployment in the north is a price worth paying for prosperity in the south’.
Your statement that ‘we are no longer separate’ beggars belief!
Obviously the institutions of Scotland like the church and the law remained independent after the Union.
Now with devolution, a large chunk of Governance is entirely separate from England’s.
Whatever you think, the reality is that Scotland has never been so divergent in policy from England since the Act of Union occured all those years ago.
It has a SNP Government for one thing. You can hardly call that a ‘rump’.
Other Scottish political parties also favour independence like the Greens, the SSP and Solidarity.
Even the other Unionist parties are considering more powers for Scotland.
The Lib Dems are particularly forthright in demanding more fiscal powers.
‘Devolution is a process, not an event’. Its a famous phrase, and one which Donald Dewar agreed with.
The process seems to be all one way.
Towards independence.
Get used to the idea!
Leave a Comment