As with most things British, the Union between Scotland and England can be traced back hundreds of years. A key date must be 1603 when James VI of Scotland was crowned James I of England. However, despite now sharing a king the two nations remained very much distinct. Scotland retained her own Parliament, legal system and state religion. It wasn't until the Act of Union of 1707 that the two countries were bound together into a single nation.
The background to the 1707 Act was certainly eventful. The previous half a century had seen civil war, the execution of a king, the restoration of the monarchy and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The latter event is one of the most important events in British constitutional history. It put to rest any notion of the divine right of monarchs and ensured Protestantism was here to stay. What's more, the Bill of Rights of 1689 established the basis for the civil liberties we rely on today.
It is against this backdrop that the Act of Union was passed in 1707. It can be seen as the culmination of half a century of radical constitutional change. However, to understand the reasons behind its enactment, one must look abroad.
In 1707 Europe was embroiled in the War of the Spanish Succession. England had joined forces with Holland and Austria to take on the might of Louis XIV's France and, after the Battle of Blenheim in 1704, England was winning. The way had been paved for a new English dominance that would see her become the World's leading trading-power. The success of her colonies in the New World, already a source of steady income, would see her wealth increase even further.
The success of England stood in stark contrast with Scotland's international woes. England's Navigation Laws had made illegal all Scottish trade with England's colonial possessions. Excluded from the new-found wealth of her southern neighbour, Scotland embarked on her first and last colonial venture. The Darien scheme failed so catastrophically that it virtually bankrupted the entire nation. Scotland was left isolated and poor, a tiny country on the periphery of Europe.
In 1705 England made Scotland an offer she could not refuse: either England would cut off all trade with Scotland or the two nations could form a Union. Scotland would gain free access to England's colonial markets in return for the surrender of her independence. To say no would mean financial ruin. To say yes would bring wealth and prosperity. Unsurprisingly, the Scots said yes.
Scotland never looked back. At least until now. The British Empire is now long gone and the free market reigns supreme. Is there still an economic case for Union? Scottish independence rests on that simple question.
Don't forget the rather interesting passage of the Scotch "Claim of Right" in 1689 which parallels the Bill of Rights in England.
ReplyDeleteWhat the S.N.P. should be made to prove is whether there is an economic case for independence. We need to be utterly cold-blooded about this and make it clear that the rest of the Union won't go out of its way to make a generous settlement with an independent Scotland. No more devolution - no more half-way measures. You're either in or out.
Hmm, must be the cold making be obdurate.
The 1689 Bill of Rights was a contradictory piece of work. In addition to its influence on modern civil liberties, it was, and remains in my opinion, fundamentally bigoted and anti-Catholic. Perhaps you could argue that it was an understandable reaction given the conditions which existed then, but it left Catholics miserably disenfranchised and with few civil rights until the ‘Emancipation’ during the early nineteenth century. Its legacy is still alive today in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which remain blighted by sectarianism, and in England, through an anachronistic law which still bars Catholic from acceding to the throne.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s a little misleading to say that the Scots opted for Union, thus giving the impression that a majority freely and willingly made a choice, when no concept of popular representation existed at the time. That’s not to say that there weren’t good reasons for Scots to choose Union, but it certainly wasn’t a democratic act, not by any stretch of the imagination.
@Simon:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Britain needs to make clear that Salmond won't get a free ride. At the same time, any case for the Union must be a positive one. There was a terrible piece in the Mail the other day (accessible here: http://bit.ly/yUb2eM) about how Scotland would be in meltdown by 2018. By the end of it I was up for supporting Scottish independence on principle!
@Paul As you acknowledge, you can't look at a seventeenth century piece of legislation & take it out of context but I do see your point though. Regarding my saying the Scots opted for Union: you're right, it does make it sound like a democratic decision. My bad!