Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

True Scotsman

This is a late article. I had too write this article from the Scotsman because the link too the page only shows a part of the article, you have too pay too see the rest of it. Paul Henderson Scott writes about what really made Scots accepting the Treaty of Union.

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=617762006

So what really lay behind Scots acceptance of the Treaty of Union?

The demise of the first Scottish Parliament is more complicated than just a parcel of rogues being bought and sold, writes Paul Henderson Scott

Focus

Three hundred years ago this month, on 16 April, 1706, talks began in London which led to the presentation to Queen Anne on 23 July of the Treaty of Union, which still required ratification by the two parliaments. But, to explain how events had reached this stage, we have to go back a few years.
The experience of the semi-independence of the Union of the Crowns since 1603 had been disastrous for Scotland. Power lay in the hands theoretically of the monarch in London, but in fact in the hand of English ministers. They made all official appointments of Scotland, including the leaders of the Scottish administration, and inevitably chose men who could be relied on to support English policy. Government revenues went to London and very little returned to Scotland. England built up the most powerful army in Europe, with the help so Scottish manpower and taxes; but Scotland was left with virtually no defence at all. England’s wars in Europe ravaged Scottish trade.
In response to this, the Scottish Parliament passed an act to authorise the establishment of a company to trade to Africa and the Indies. As King of Scots, King William gave his consent to the act, but as King of England he did all he could to frustrate the attempt by the company in 1698 to establish a trading post at Darien in Panama. The English parliament and English trading interests saw the Scottish company as a potential rival to the English East India Company. Accordingly, English investment was denied to the Scottish company and English diplomatic representation in Europe discouraged continental investment. English colonies overseas were instructed to any deny assistance to the Scottish company. The English ambassador in Spain was instructed virtually to encourage a Spanish attack on the Darien settlement, which was in territory to which Spain had a theoretical claim.

In the absence of any foreign investment, the Scots, in a great patriotic endeavour, raised the necessary funds by investing about half of the money in circulation in the country; but the venture ended in total failure by 1700. This was largely because of inadequate preparation and poor planning, but at least partly because of English hostility. Many of the men and ships were lost and shares in the company became worthless.
The Darien affair gave the English government an added reason for an attempt to abolish the Scottish Parliament. It had shown that it could take initiatives which might be damaging to English trade [England’s] principal objective was to secure its northern border during its prolonged war with France. The losses of the Darien shareholders offered it a possible means of buying Scottish support for the Union by offering, or appearing to offer, compensation. From the Scottish point of view, the Darien failure was a further setback to the Scottish economy, but Scottish distrust of England was increased by the evidence of English hostility.
Just as Scottish discontent with the Union of Crowns came to a head with the Darien disaster, an opportunity arose to escape from it. All of Queen Anne’s children died in her own lifetime, the last of them on 30 July, 1700. There was no obvious heir to the throne. The English parliament in 1702, without consulting Scotland, offered the succession to Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and her descendents. Clearly, this could not be binding on Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament, elected in 1703, ignored the request from London that it should concentrate on raising taxes for the wars against France and concentrated on the question of succession to the throne. After debating several drafts, it passed the Act of Security. This stipulated that on the death of Queen Anne, the Scottish Parliament would choose a different successor to the English, unless arrangements had been made to secure the independence of Scotland against English or any foreign influence.
The act did not have Royal assent in 1703, so the Scottish Parliament passed it again in 1704. This time it was approved, presumably because the English government had prepared its response. The following year it passed through both houses of the English parliament an act to protect England against the “apparent dangers” of the Scottish measures. Its first part proposed that both countries should appoint commissioners to consider the union of the two kingdoms.
There was nothing threatening in this, because “union” at the time was a vague term to mean an agreement for any common purpose. It was only with the Treaty of Union that it implied the incorporation of one country in another. The second part of the act was more threatening. Unless the Scots accept the same succession to the throne as England, the main items of Scottish export to England would be treated as aliens in England and incapable of inheriting property.
At the same time, England was also busy in the “management” of the Scottish Parliament, that is the recruitment of members to vote as England wished by such inducements as official appointments, pensions, or simple bribery. There is no doubt that this was carried through on a large scale. It even included the brilliant and charismatic leader of the opposition, the Duke of Hamilton. Normally, he was an effective champion of Scottish independence and was according cheered by the crowed in the Edinburgh streets. But at critical points in the debate, once in 1705 on the appointment of the Scottish commissioners for the London talks and three times when the treaty was under discussion in 1706, he sabotaged his own side.
The first of these was the most disastrous. In September 1705, late in the day when most of his supporters had left the chamber, he suddenly proposed that the selection of the Scottish commissioners to the Queen, which meant in effect by English ministers. The government seized the opportunity, and it was so decided. Afterwards, Hamilton wrote to his English contact, “I have done Her Majesty signal service.” He had indeed. The English historian G M Trevelyan said of the union that Hamilton was “the instrument under Heaven of its almost miraculous passage”.
Since both teams for the discussions in London had been appointed by the English government, it followed that they were not negotiations in any ordinary sense of the word. At the start, the English tabled their proposal for an “incorporating” union and refused to consider any alternative. This involved a number of additional burdens on the Scottish economy, a share of liability for the large English national debt, the cost of conversion of the Scottish coinage, and the acceptance of English customs, excise and other taxes. In compensation for all of these, and for abolition of the company of Scotland, a sum of money, the “Equivalent”, was to be paid to Scotland and used to repay the Darien investors.

Since many Scots thought that their money had been lost forever, this was a very strong inducement to support the union. But how genuine was the offer? A distinguished accountant, J G Pittendrigh, has looked into this and has contributed a chapter in my latest book. He concludes that the Equivalent was insufficient to meet all its purposes and in any case only about half was, in fact, paid in cash. For the majority of the Darien investors, it was a cruel deception.
The main effect of the treaty was the abolition of the Scottish Parliament and the addition of the English (now to be known as the Parliament of Great Britain) of a few Scottish members, in the Commons one more member than Cornwall and in the Lords fewer Scottish peers than England had bishops.

When the terms of the treaty became known in Scotland, it was met with outrage. The debate in Parliament began on 3 October 1706, and a flood of address against the union, and not one of them in favour, poured in from all over Scotland. Many of them argued that the treaty would harm Scottish trade. They were right. The immediate effect of the union was to depress the Scottish economy for the next 30 to 40 years. Even so, the majority on every division, as parliament voted article by article, was in favour of the treaty. And this was the same parliament with the same members that had voted repeatedly for independence in 1703, 1704 and 1705. “Management” had evidently triumphed.
But was it only bribery? John Clerk, a leading member of the Scottish administration, said that the main reason for excepting the treaty was the realisation that the alternative was an English invasion and the imposition of worse terms. England had made this plain from the start, and perhaps in the end that was their strongest means of persuasion.
*Paul Scott’s latest book is The Union of 1707: Why and How (Saltire Society, £6.99).

_________________
FREEDOM FOR SCOTLAND!!!!!!!!

IF Convenor · Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject:

The closest Saturday to the 300th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament meeting to debate the terms of the treaty of union is 30th September 2006. This is the reason Independence First chose this day for our first march and rally in support of our demand for a referendum on independence for Scotland.

Visit www.independence1st.com for the latest news on the march.
_________________
The man o independent mind,
He looks and laughs at aa that.

Economist · Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject:

Thanks for that, True Scotsman Wink

, it was a very good read.

I'd like to think we're closer to repealing that ruinous Treaty, than we ever have been.
_________________
Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit - Bullshit baffles brains

True Scotsman · Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject:

Nae problem Economist. Hopefully we are getting closer too reapealing the Treaty.
_________________
FREEDOM FOR SCOTLAND!!!!!!!!

Blackadder · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 4021

True Scotsman wrote:

True Scotsman · Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:06 am Post subject:

Blackadder I put on a list of those Lords who were bribed too vote yes on another topic. You should read this topic too find out more.

http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/ftopic1537.php
_________________
FREEDOM FOR SCOTLAND!!!!!!!!

Babygael · Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:05 am Post subject:

Yes you did TS, and I thank you for that invaluable info!!
_________________
Ath-bheothachadh

Drink beer,don't drive...its cheeper!

True Scotsman · Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject:

Your welcome Babygael.
_________________
FREEDOM FOR SCOTLAND!!!!!!!!

Blackadder · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 4021

Yes ... well ... your bagpipe probably needs feeding about now!

Pragmatic Pict · No Longer a Wean Joined: 24 Aug 2006 Posts: 60

A basic summary by the legend that is Rabbie Burns

'We're bought and sold for English gold'--
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

This line having a go at the treacherous aristos

Pragmatic Pict · No Longer a Wean Joined: 24 Aug 2006 Posts: 60

True Scotsman · Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject:

I don't have bagpipes Blackadder. I never played a bagpipe.
_________________
FREEDOM FOR SCOTLAND!!!!!!!!

Blackadder · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 4021

PP wrote:

Anthropos · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 323

Blackadder · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 4021

Happily ... the McAdder line died out in 1746 at a little skirmish called Culloden.

You probably played your cat instead by the way, Apropos!

Anthropos · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 323

Blackadder · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 4021

You are referring to McAdder the Unproven. There's some question over his paternity. ... like a lot of people on these kinds of boards!

However, we do not include them in the Family Tree.

Morph · Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject:

The point that the Alien act which was produced in 1705 (i think) which stated that the english estates of Scottsh lords would be taken away if they did not agree with the succession aspirations ofthe english ie the Hanovarian line. I think that this was a major sway for some individuals in the Scottish parliament
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Blackadder · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 4021

One fails to see the point you are struggling heroically to make ... but failing spectacularly to do so ...

One O'Clock Gun · Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject: