Rolfe
9th May 2008, 06:33 PM
By the way I know it is a minor point but the Scottish Parliament voted to merge with England to create the UK in 1707. This was achieved by securing some key votes with an element of bribery. Scotland was not conquered by arms but by money. The wars of Independence were won by Bruce back in the 14th century.
I actually sat in the dentist's waiting room this afternoon reading a bite-sized history book all about how the Union actually came about. I didn't realise until reading it that it was commonly accepted until recently (and may still be in some quarters) that Scotland approached England to request the union in order to gain access to English trading opportunities. The book explained why this misapprehension gained currency, but it was certainly not something I'd ever heard.
The catalogue of disasters for Scotland that led to 1707 is just surreal reading - I suppose starting with Elizabeth of England deciding to remain the "Virgin Queen", though the book didn't actually go into that bit. The Union of the Crowns was a political and economic disaster for Scotland, which was left with an ineffective parliament whose very membership was at the whim of Jamie the Saxt and his English advisors (who certainly didn't have the good of Scotland at heart), and which relied on said Jamie to sign the acts, which he often didn't do. Worse was the cutting off of Scotland's historic trading partners, who all seemed to be at war with England - this was when Scotland had to withdraw from France and the Netherlands. And also, Scotland was required to raise taxes to support England's wars with Scotland's former partners, and received no inward investment in return.
This dire state of affairs led to the even bigger disaster of the Darien scheme, which collapsed partly due to ill-preparedness (many of those involved had no idea what trade goods were actually wanted or needed in these latitudes, and still less of an idea about tropical diseases), but largely due to attacks by Spain, which it later emerged had been incited by English ambassadors.
One thing I hadn't really understood was the sheer visceral hatred between the Scots and the English at the time. An 1873 source is quoted as saying:
The English hated Scotland because Scotland had successfully defied them [ - this referring back to the wars of Independence, won by Scotland in 1314]: the Scots hated England as an enemy on the watch to make them slaves. The hereditary hostility strengthened with time, and each generation added fresh injuries to the accumulation of bitterness.
Several incidents are recounted to illustrate the depths of this feeling, including one in 1762 reported by Boswell. This "hereditary hostility" explains quite a lot of what is seen even today, because although it faded somewhat in the 19th century and a great deal in the 20th century, remnants are still there. Realising why it's there makes it easier to fight against it and try to exclude any manifestation of it from 21st century civic life.
Anyway, things came to a head at the beginning of the 18th century when it became clear that Queen Anne was likely to die without living issue. The English parliament unilaterally offered the throne to Sophia, Electress of Hanover. It seems it was merely assumed that Scotland would accede to this. However Scotland, smarting under the ignominy of being ignored and disadvantaged for the previous century, didn't.
A vote was passed that the Scottish parliament should take control of the succession as it related to the Scottish throne, and also that the monarchy should be made formally conditional "for the preservation of our religion and liberty".
This attempt by the Scottish parliament to end the Union of the Crowns was received very badly by England, and this is where the politicking and bribery began. It's not a pretty tale, and some people forget that when Burns wrote "We're bought and sold for English gold, sic a parcel o rogues in a nation", the "nation" he referred to was Scotland. Of course it was very tempting indeed to the Scottish nobles, many of whom had lost their shirts in the Darien scheme, to be offered restitution of these losses in return for voting their parliament out of existence.
That's as far as I've got in the book, but I know broadly that strenuous attempts were made to negotiate a federal solution, but this was rejected by England. In the end England dictated the terms and the Scots signed.
However, there was a bit more to it than that. It had been made clear to the Scots that the consequence of not signing would be armed invasion, which Scotland was poorly equipped to resist and which would have beggared the country completely. So they signed.
This wasn't popular. The bells in Edinburgh played the tune "Why should I be so sad on my wedding day". There were anti-union riots in the streets of all the cities of Scotland. The signatories of the Act of Union were chased down the High Street in Edinburgh by a mob and hid in a small room to sign the Act in private. (That room was recently identified as currently the Ladies Toilet of a pizza franchise.) But it was done.
Free Romanian was wrong about the Middle Ages (we won, dammit!), but mostly right about 1707. Not entirely right though. The bribes did it - or did they? If someone offers you a bribe, and makes it clear that if you do not accept they will take what they want by force which will seriously disadvantage you and yours, and you know they are able to make good that threat, are you daft if you take the bribe?
Finally, for many years I was misled by the popular presentation of the '15 and the '45 as being all to do with Jacobitism and lofty opinions about the true succession. But that's much too simple. Why did Charled Edward Stewart (the creep) find it so easy to raise support in Scotland? Why are there Jacobite broadswords in museums inscribed "For Charlie and No Union"? Just read up on the events of 1703 to 1707, and the events of 1715 and 1745-46 become a great deal clearer. But Charles Edward Stewart (the creep), like Jamie before him, had his eyes on a bigger prize than Scotland. If he'd stopped at Edinburgh, and taken the Scottish crown which he was offered, the Union would have ended there and then. But he insisted on pressing south to take London, and the further south he got the less enthusiastic his Scottish followers were, he turned back at Derby, and you all know the rest.
I have heard English people declare that in fact Scotland was defeated and annexed by England at Culloden. I used to deny that statement hotly, on many grounds. There were Scots fighting on both sides at Culloden. It occurred nearly 40 years after the actual union, thus it was not the cause of the union - it was in effect a civil war. Nevertheless I think that at a deeper level that misunderstanding is in a way true. To many of those fighting, the motivation was for Scotland to choose a different king to England, and so end the union. They failed, and the retribution unleashed on Scotland was the beginning of the (attempted) genocide I mentioned in an earlier post.
Sorry to go on so long, but there are a lot of half-truths and misinformations floating around on this one, and those who do not learn from their past are destined to repeat it.
Rolfe.
I actually sat in the dentist's waiting room this afternoon reading a bite-sized history book all about how the Union actually came about. I didn't realise until reading it that it was commonly accepted until recently (and may still be in some quarters) that Scotland approached England to request the union in order to gain access to English trading opportunities. The book explained why this misapprehension gained currency, but it was certainly not something I'd ever heard.
The catalogue of disasters for Scotland that led to 1707 is just surreal reading - I suppose starting with Elizabeth of England deciding to remain the "Virgin Queen", though the book didn't actually go into that bit. The Union of the Crowns was a political and economic disaster for Scotland, which was left with an ineffective parliament whose very membership was at the whim of Jamie the Saxt and his English advisors (who certainly didn't have the good of Scotland at heart), and which relied on said Jamie to sign the acts, which he often didn't do. Worse was the cutting off of Scotland's historic trading partners, who all seemed to be at war with England - this was when Scotland had to withdraw from France and the Netherlands. And also, Scotland was required to raise taxes to support England's wars with Scotland's former partners, and received no inward investment in return.
This dire state of affairs led to the even bigger disaster of the Darien scheme, which collapsed partly due to ill-preparedness (many of those involved had no idea what trade goods were actually wanted or needed in these latitudes, and still less of an idea about tropical diseases), but largely due to attacks by Spain, which it later emerged had been incited by English ambassadors.
One thing I hadn't really understood was the sheer visceral hatred between the Scots and the English at the time. An 1873 source is quoted as saying:
The English hated Scotland because Scotland had successfully defied them [ - this referring back to the wars of Independence, won by Scotland in 1314]: the Scots hated England as an enemy on the watch to make them slaves. The hereditary hostility strengthened with time, and each generation added fresh injuries to the accumulation of bitterness.
Several incidents are recounted to illustrate the depths of this feeling, including one in 1762 reported by Boswell. This "hereditary hostility" explains quite a lot of what is seen even today, because although it faded somewhat in the 19th century and a great deal in the 20th century, remnants are still there. Realising why it's there makes it easier to fight against it and try to exclude any manifestation of it from 21st century civic life.
Anyway, things came to a head at the beginning of the 18th century when it became clear that Queen Anne was likely to die without living issue. The English parliament unilaterally offered the throne to Sophia, Electress of Hanover. It seems it was merely assumed that Scotland would accede to this. However Scotland, smarting under the ignominy of being ignored and disadvantaged for the previous century, didn't.
A vote was passed that the Scottish parliament should take control of the succession as it related to the Scottish throne, and also that the monarchy should be made formally conditional "for the preservation of our religion and liberty".
This attempt by the Scottish parliament to end the Union of the Crowns was received very badly by England, and this is where the politicking and bribery began. It's not a pretty tale, and some people forget that when Burns wrote "We're bought and sold for English gold, sic a parcel o rogues in a nation", the "nation" he referred to was Scotland. Of course it was very tempting indeed to the Scottish nobles, many of whom had lost their shirts in the Darien scheme, to be offered restitution of these losses in return for voting their parliament out of existence.
That's as far as I've got in the book, but I know broadly that strenuous attempts were made to negotiate a federal solution, but this was rejected by England. In the end England dictated the terms and the Scots signed.
However, there was a bit more to it than that. It had been made clear to the Scots that the consequence of not signing would be armed invasion, which Scotland was poorly equipped to resist and which would have beggared the country completely. So they signed.
This wasn't popular. The bells in Edinburgh played the tune "Why should I be so sad on my wedding day". There were anti-union riots in the streets of all the cities of Scotland. The signatories of the Act of Union were chased down the High Street in Edinburgh by a mob and hid in a small room to sign the Act in private. (That room was recently identified as currently the Ladies Toilet of a pizza franchise.) But it was done.
Free Romanian was wrong about the Middle Ages (we won, dammit!), but mostly right about 1707. Not entirely right though. The bribes did it - or did they? If someone offers you a bribe, and makes it clear that if you do not accept they will take what they want by force which will seriously disadvantage you and yours, and you know they are able to make good that threat, are you daft if you take the bribe?
Finally, for many years I was misled by the popular presentation of the '15 and the '45 as being all to do with Jacobitism and lofty opinions about the true succession. But that's much too simple. Why did Charled Edward Stewart (the creep) find it so easy to raise support in Scotland? Why are there Jacobite broadswords in museums inscribed "For Charlie and No Union"? Just read up on the events of 1703 to 1707, and the events of 1715 and 1745-46 become a great deal clearer. But Charles Edward Stewart (the creep), like Jamie before him, had his eyes on a bigger prize than Scotland. If he'd stopped at Edinburgh, and taken the Scottish crown which he was offered, the Union would have ended there and then. But he insisted on pressing south to take London, and the further south he got the less enthusiastic his Scottish followers were, he turned back at Derby, and you all know the rest.
I have heard English people declare that in fact Scotland was defeated and annexed by England at Culloden. I used to deny that statement hotly, on many grounds. There were Scots fighting on both sides at Culloden. It occurred nearly 40 years after the actual union, thus it was not the cause of the union - it was in effect a civil war. Nevertheless I think that at a deeper level that misunderstanding is in a way true. To many of those fighting, the motivation was for Scotland to choose a different king to England, and so end the union. They failed, and the retribution unleashed on Scotland was the beginning of the (attempted) genocide I mentioned in an earlier post.
Sorry to go on so long, but there are a lot of half-truths and misinformations floating around on this one, and those who do not learn from their past are destined to repeat it.
Rolfe.