The Scots and Union
Friday, 8th September 2006Politics and history are colliding in Scotland. Next May’s Scottish Parliament elections coincide with the tri-centenary of the Union. Jack McConnell opened the new session of the Scottish Parliament this week with a declaration that no Scot’s patriotism should be doubted because they support the partnership created over three hundred years ago. And Gordon Brown yesterday redefined the economic case for the Union in our time.
If the political temperature is rising, the historical debate is also hotting up with an estimated seven new books due this year examining the origins of the Union.
For the last half-century the prevailing wisdom about the events of 1707 was that supine, Scottish politicians were ‘Bought and sold for English gold’ and voted the nation’s Parliament out of existence for personal gain.
Stories of betrayal and of the Scots as victims have long dominated our history books. As if historical victimhood, somehow explained contemporary realities of emigration, de-industrialisation and political impotence. In the Thatcher years it all seemed so resonant. Poor Scotland: marginalized, victimised and suffering.
And so many of my generation simply assumed that the Scottish cringe that has plagued our nation in recent decades, had a much longer pedigree traceable to how the ruling class sold our sovereignty in 1707. Nationalists determinedly bear the scar as a badge of honour.
And so no matter what Britain, with Scotland at its heart, has achieved in this past 300 years there are those who believe our accomplishments are built on suspect foundations. How interesting then if the tri-centennial of the Act of Union becomes the occasion for myths to be scotched.
If the Scots were indeed ‘Bought and sold for English gold’ then few actions would be more lamentable. The final verdict must be for our historians. Undoubtedly, however, the power of the “victim Scotland” myth has stymied our hopes and potential.
How refreshing it therefore is to read Professor Christopher forthcoming work ‘The Scots and the Union’. He argues persuasively that ‘bought and sold for English gold’ is little more than an ill-founded prejudice and a great disservice to the brave political generation who negotiated our incorporating Union.
Given how pervasive the negative accounts of the process are it may come as a surprise to many that the Act of Union was negotiated at all. But negotiated it was, and over a period of some five years. Professor Whatley argues that those politicians involved were men of principle, pragmatism and well qualified to be called patriots.
In another echo of contemporary debates, Whatley identifies Scotland’s economy, security and identity as critical to the considerations of the Dukes of Queensbury and Argyll, the Earls of Stair, Marchmont and Leven and other prominent politicians of the time.
They believed that Scotland’s ailing independent economy would be well served by access to English colonial suppliers and the Caribbean and North American markets. The Darien disaster in 1699 left many Scottish nobles out of pocket, but more importantly it confirmed the failure of the near bankrupt country to secure the trading routes and partners necessary for prosperity. While Darien may be seen as a tipping point there is strong academic analysis from the time showing an awareness of Scotland’s deep-seated economic problems. Those who studied the malaise knew the remedy and were long-term, committed Unionists.
Scottish security was also of concern to this political generation and is frequently neglected in more parochial accounts of the period. The aggressive France of Louis XIV and the conquering zeal of the counter-reformation were real threats. A determination never to return to these so-called ‘Killing Times’ of late sixteenth century Scotland made many seek refuge in the security of Union.
Whatley argues that the political class thought that Scottish identity was more in tune with our English neighbours than with the peoples of mainland Europe. Shared religion and language united the lowland Scots with the south of this island more than with the north of Scotland. If the strength of that identity was to be maintained the necessary economic prosperity and security for the nation lay in a partnership with England.
Again the contemporary echoes are fascinating. In today’s insecure world is dividing ourselves within one island the overriding priority? Are there not values that transcend one’s place of birth? Is not poverty rather than the border a greater scar on Scottish life today?
Prof Whatley concludes that the Union was a pragmatic decision taken on the important matters of state: the economy of the country, the security of the state and the identity of the nation. Which begs the question as to why the myth of betrayal has gained such currency?
The romanticism of the Jacobite tendency is a theme of popular folklore, which persists to this day. With the independence cause long having been linked to the struggle for the restoration of a Stuart monarchy, the opposition to Union was a clever means for the Stuarts to resist a Hanoverian succession following the death of Queen Anne. Apparently political spin has a rather longer pedigree than we sometimes assume!
The immediate consequences of the Union were mixed for Scotland. New coinage, imperial weights and measures, higher and deeply unpopular taxes and an army of customs and excise officers to collect them – as well as cultural and political changes for the Scots.
I commend Whatley’s account of the difficult early years of this British marriage to anyone tempted to believe that independence would be a flawless transition after 300 years of complex political, economic and cultural connection. If the marriage was difficult, think about the pain of separation.
Whatley’s is a history of the time but his conclusion is clear, the benefits have been long lasting and are permanent for this country for as long as we would wish to maintain them.
And so history and politics collide once more. Is the British story one of stronger together weaker apart?
History’s verdict on the Union will be debated throughout the coming year. Prof Tom Devine’s forthcoming lecture series will bring together many of the recent contributors to the historical debate.
Nor will we politicians committed to the continuing partnership between Scotland and England shirk our responsibility to argue the case for the Union anew in our own times. Today’s received wisdom is that Scotland and England are growing further apart.
But in family connections that is simply not true. The scale of this growing connection is barely understood.
At the time of the union it is estimated that only 3% of Scots had relatives in England.
By WW1 that figure had reached 18%. Today almost half of us have family in England. Almost a million Scots live and work in England and 400, 000 people born in England now live in Scotland.
Beyond these families ties lies our economic integration. A home market that spans the whole of the UK is of fundamental importance to the Scottish economy.
But crucially, in this new century, there is a new economic case for the Union. In all advanced countries the main driver of growth is now the application of knowledge and ideas. And knowledge and ideas flow through networks built up over centuries.
Through the Union a basis was created for the development of a rich web of interconnectedness between the two countries – family ties, corporate ties, royal societies, medical bodies, trade unions and so forth.
Scotland’s connections with the rest of Britain are greater and more important to our prosperity than they were in the past.
According to the SNP, Scotland must choose between Scotland and the UK.
Not only is the choice unnecessary but it is inadvisable. Above all it is not founded on the reality of an increasingly connected, interdependent and integrated United Kingdom. So let us build rather than destroy the connections that enrich us – past, present and future.