Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 

BEWARE OF SCAMMERS ASKING FOR ADMIN ACCESS. WE NEVER ASK FOR ACCESS.


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Avatar

"If Scotland had said No" by Micheal Fry

Quote:
IT ALL went wrong in the end. It went wrong despite the fact that, by January 1707, the government of Scotland had come tantalisingly close to its goal of winning consent from the Parliament in Edinburgh for a Treaty of Union with England.

The head of the government, William Douglas, Duke of Queensberry, had tried every trick in the book to win over individual members of the opposition. He offered them money from a slush-fund thoughtfully provided by the English and jobs in a United Kingdom of the future.
Click to learn more...

And for a while this seemed to be working. Back in November 1706 the government had won the initial vote on the principle of the treaty, if by less of a majority than it hoped.

But as the details of the treaty came up one by one for debate, the feeling of unease grew in a Parliament being asked to vote itself out of existence.

Finally, in January 1707, came a break in the government's shaky coalition for the Union. The sticking point was the 22nd article of the treaty, setting out Scotland's future representation at Westminster. Meagre it was too: 45 MPs in the House of Commons, against 513 Englishmen, and 16 peers in the House of Lords, out of more than 200 members there. The crucial debate in the Scots Parliament proved a triumph for James, Duke of Hamilton. As leader of the opposition he had so far been a disappointment, not to say a failure.

But when Hamilton stood up in the Parliament on the fateful day, though battling against a toothache, he made such a brilliant speech, witty and moving at once, that the house went straight on to defeat the 22nd article by a decisive majority. It was so basic to the deal between England and Scotland, the product of long, hard bargaining by the original draftsmen on each side, that the whole treaty fell.

The Chancellor of Scotland, Lord Seafield, had feared some such disaster. He had ready his advice to Queen Anne in London about what course to follow now. He wrote out the opinion, bound to be unwelcome, that the Union could just never get through this Scottish Parliament.

The Parliament was not merely adjourned but shortly afterwards dissolved. The general election which followed gave a huge majority to the nationalists in Edinburgh, from an electorate furious at the attempt to sell the nation out. England and Scotland were not now going to come together in one country in 1707. In the event they never did.

It is interesting to speculate what would have followed if those proposals for Union had gone through after all. Three centuries later Scotland might have turned into 'Scotlandshire', in effect a mere county of England, with 2,000 years of history just a memory. Perhaps people would still have dressed up in kilts and tartans, but it would all have been meaningless.

Luckily things took a different turn, and the eventual resolution of the crisis between Scotland and England proved in the end at least as beneficial to both as a Union could ever have been. The depth of the crisis at the time should not be doubted. In 1707 England was at war with France, one of many wars both nations would fight.

Scotland formed part of the strategic calculations not only of Queen Anne and her ministers in London but also of King Louis XIV and his courtiers in Paris. In the war the English and their allies were pressing against the frontiers of France, which had suffered crushing defeats at the Battle of Blenheim and Ramillies. One possible counter for the French was to open a second front, and for a while Scotland seemed a possibility.

The Scots disliked their arrogant and bullying southern neighbours. Many hoped that, when Anne died, they might restore the legitimate line of Stuarts in the person of the Jacobite claimant, James, son of the James VII of Scotland deposed and exiled to France by the Revolution of 1688.

The English had, meanwhile, already decided that the legitimate line of Stuarts should never come back. It was Roman Catholic, and they wanted only Protestant monarchs. By the Act of Settlement of 1701, the English determined their crown should pass on Anne's death to the House of Hanover, which had the next best claim.

But what were the Scots to do on Anne's death, now a Union of Parliaments was off the agenda? They had always refused to accept the Hanoverian succession for themselves, even though it might solve their problems with England. It had seemed bad enough being ruled by monarchs who, though Scots in origin, had become to all intents and purposes English, and resident in London since the Union of Crowns in 1603. To have Germans ruling them from London could only make things worse.

One alternative was to recall young James, the Jacobite pretender. But though Highlanders supported him, Lowlanders did not. Civil war might follow his accession, or invasion from the south. In the end the Crown came to hover over the brow of the Duke of Hamilton himself. The blood of the Stuarts ran in his veins too. In the 15th century one of his ancestors had married a daughter of James II, King of Scots. It gave him not a wonderful claim to the throne, but unlike the rest of the candidates, Hamilton was a born Scotsman.

An Act of Settlement named him and the heirs of his body to follow Queen Anne. Hamilton himself was never to become king, as he died in an ill-conceived duel in 1712, but on Anne's death in 1714 his young son succeeded as James VIII, King of Scots, while his distant cousin from Hanover became King George I of England. This arrangement suited both nations perfectly well and they have continued to live as friendly neighbours ever since.

By the same deal as established the Hamiltonian succession, free trade opened up between Scotland and England. Its terms also included the English colonies, and commerce with America began to offer solutions to deep-seated economic problems. Glasgow became the biggest destination in Europe for the import of tobacco. The profits laid the foundation for the industrial revolution during the 19th century.

It may seem a paradox that the end of the Union of Crowns heralded easier relations between England and Scotland, though the way forward was not always smooth. The French finally made their move by assisting the Jacobite pretender to land at Peterhead to make a bid for the throne in 1715, in the first year of young James VIII's reign. But the fact that this 13-year-old boy was himself a Scot made the whole nation rally round to face down a foreign intervention. The loyalist victory at the Battle of Sheriffmuir put an end to the Jacobite cause. There were rumours of a further invasion as late as 1745, but nothing came of them.

With old feuds being allayed under a native dynasty, Scots entered an era of peace and prosperity such as they had never known. As well as good political relations with England, cultural links blossomed with France and the Continent.

The result was the Enlightenment. For wider circulation in Europe, authors not using the old Scots tongue often preferred French. David Hume's Traité de la Nature Humaine and Adam Smith's Enquete sur la Richesse des Nations figured among such works. Sir Walter Scott even reached a mass readership, in Scotland and in Europe, with his La Mariée de Lammermoor, his L'Ancienne Mortalité, his Gantelet-Rouge and his La Belle Jeune Fille de Perth. Once translated into English, he became popular in England and America too.

While keeping up cultural contacts in Europe, Scots fought their wars with the English. This meant they were also able to exploit opportunities in the English Empire. They had the best of all worlds.

King Douglas I (1769-1799) raised regiments and sent them to America to help the English in their unsuccessful effort at quashing the colonial rebellion which created the United States. Before his accession to the throne, the diplomacy of King Alexander IV (1813-1852) forged the alliance between England and Russia that won the war against Napoleon. King Alfred (1895-1940) liked commanding his little Scots navy, though by the middle of his reign most power of governance had passed to the Parliament on Calton Hill in Edinburgh.

And so we come to the present monarch, King Angus. He ushered in an especially distinguished phase in the history of the royal House of Hamilton. A great part in it has been played by his brother, Prince James Douglas-Hamilton, now about to retire after a long spell as a leader of the Tory party. The Tories remain, as they have been since 1707, the sternest defenders of Scottish independence. They insist that Scots and English, though the best of friends, are better apart than together.


http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=69752007

I find this "what if?" stuff really interesting, there used to be a program on the history channel that followed that line of thought and historians planned out what may have happened if for example Martin Luther King hadnt been assasinated.

So anyone have any other thoughts as to what may have happened if the union hadnt?
Dave Coull

Interesting.

I'm not impressed with Michael Fry as a historian,
but maybe he is better at speculative fiction !

The idea of Scotland going for the Hamiltons as an
alternative to both Hanover and the exiled Stuarts
is a clever one. In the circumstances he speculates
on where Hamilton kept popular support as a champion
of the people, it's entirely possible. The French did
something similar in 1830 if I remember correctly,
went for a popular aristocrat distantly related
to the royals as a "people's king" instead of either
the Bourbons or a republic; and of course the Duke
of Monmouth sought the English throne in 1685
as a populist candidate with royal connections.
England passed a law specifying that after Queen
Anne the throne should go to the next _protestant_
in line, which meant they had to pass over not
just one but dozens of possible claimants. All that
the Scottish parliament would have needed to do
was to pass a similar "Act of Settlement" specifying
"must be born, raised, and resident in Scotland".
And Fry is right that _IF_ that had happened,
then the resulting genuinely home-grown dynasty
would have been widely popular and could have
beaten off both Jacobite and Hanoverian challenges.
Morph

The problem with this is due to the Alien act passed in England and the threat of nobles losing there much more valuable land down south how much support, at a level that politically mattered, would have been given to this?
Dave Coull

Morph wrote

> The problem with this is due to the Alien act passed in England
> and the threat of nobles losing there much more valuable land
> down south how much support, at a level that politically mattered,
> would have been given to this?

By "at a level that politically mattered" I presume you mean
amongst the members of the ruling class who were the only
people actually represented in parliament.

But if a member of that ruling class can mobilise the support
of the supposedly powerless multitude, then that certainly
DOES matter.

However, as we all know, as a matter of historical fact, this did
not happen in 1707. In particular, the Duke of Hamilton, leader
of the "opposition", proved to be pretty useless when it came
to it. But what Michael Fry is doing here is asking "what
if......?" What if the Duke of Hamilton had acted differently?

I do think that people's economic and social circumstances have
a very big role in the decisions that they make, but I wouldn't
totally go along with the Marxist idea of historical inevitability.
After all, there is a precedent. The Earl of Huntingdon was
the biggest landowner in all of England, after the king himself.
Yet in the end, after some dithering, the second biggest landowner
in England put Scotland before his wealth in England, and even
went on to defeat the English king at the Battle of Bannockburn.
And yes, it certainly did matter that he had the support
of the dis-enfranchised masses.
Avatar

My prediction would go something like -

The Parliament doesnt pass the act of union, which results in an English invasion. There is a brief war in which the English army quickly wins after a few months if that. The parliament is dissolved and the unionist leaders are put in charge along with military governers. The riots are put down by the English army. In 1715 the first Jacobite rebellion managed to unite the majority of clans against the English occupation and push the English into the Lowlands and eventually out of Scotland with the help of the Spanish. James is put on the throne of Scotland. Support for the Jacobites in the north of England led to a further invasion and the North of England was brought under James rule by 1725. With a build up of Spanish troops in Scotland, England sued for peace with Scotland and Spain.

The Scottish Enlightenment began round about 1730 as an underground movement in the now Catholic Controlled Scotland, particularly in the lowlands where there was a strong presbyterian base which had begun to be persecuted by the catholic king. The English government helped supply them with weapons etc and this resulted in the Scottish civil war, the Presbyterians favoured overthrowing the autocratic monarchy and replacing it with the old Scottish parliament, whilst the Catholics still believed in the diving rule of the king. The Lowlanders better equiped by the English managed to take control of Edinburgh quickly where the parliament was re-established, the King and his ruling elite escaped to Dundee. The English re-took control of north England and provided supplies and troops to help take control of the Highlands. The king and his entourage fled to France and the Highlanders were brought under government control with mass executions of those still loyal to James and the catholic cause. The new Scottish Republics government formed an anti-catholic alliance with England in order to keep the British isles under protestant control in 1755.

England opens up its markets to Scotland in exchange for military help in the Napoleonic wars in the 1800s.
Dave Coull

Avatar wrote

> My prediction would go something like -
>
> The Parliament doesnt pass the act of union, which results in an English invasion.

Quite possible.

> There is a brief war in which the English army quickly wins after a few months
> if that.

Also possible.

> The parliament is dissolved and the unionist leaders are put in charge along
> with military governers. The riots are put down by the English army.

So we are talking about a country under foreign military occupation.
That's a recipe for continuing unrest.

> In 1715 the first Jacobite rebellion

Even in real life, 1715 wasn't the first Jacobite venture, and in the scenario
we are talking about it almost certainly wouldn't have been.

> managed to unite the majority of clans against the English occupation

Even in real life, the 1715 rebellion was not a thing of "the clans". The majority
of support came from the North East, not from the Highlands. In the scenario
we are talking about, the role of "the clans" would have been even smaller.

> and push the English into the Lowlands and eventually out of Scotland
> with the help of the Spanish. James is put on the throne of Scotland.

The Jacobite claimants to the throne never just claimed the throne
of Scotland. They always claimed to rule England and indeed
the whole British Isles as well. There is no reason to suppose
they would have settled for just ruling Scotland.

> Support for the Jacobites in the north of England led to a further invasion
> and the North of England was brought under James rule by 1725.
> With a build up of Spanish troops in Scotland, England sued for peace
> with Scotland and Spain.
>
> The Scottish Enlightenment began round about 1730 as an underground
> movement in the now Catholic Controlled Scotland, particularly
> in the lowlands

This phrase "the lowlands" is pretty meaningless. There were big differences
between different parts of "the lowlands", and there were big differences
between different parts of "the highlands".

> where there was a strong presbyterian base which had begun to be
> persecuted by the catholic king. The English government helped supply
> them with weapons etc and this resulted in the Scottish civil war,
> the Presbyterians favoured overthrowing the autocratic monarchy
> and replacing it with the old Scottish parliament, whilst the Catholics
> still believed in the diving rule of the king. The Lowlanders

Again, a meaningless phrase. In real life history, you had "lowlander"
Jacobites and "Highlander" clans who were Hanoverian (Mackays, Rosses,
Campbells, etc etc etc) . In the hypothetical circumstances we are
talking about this artificial highland/lowland distinction would have
been even more pointless.

> better equiped by the English managed to take control of Edinburgh
> quickly where the parliament was re-established, the King
> and his ruling elite escaped to Dundee.

In real life Dundee was even more staunchly presbyterian than Edinburgh,
they would have been better to carry on till they got to Aberdeen.

> The English re-took control of north England and provided supplies
> and troops to help take control of the Highlands.

Again, a meaningless phrase. Besides there would have been more
point in taking control of the North East.

> The king and his entourage fled to France and the Highlanders
> were brought under government control with mass executions
> of those still loyal to James and the catholic cause. The new Scottish
> Republics government formed an anti-catholic alliance with England
> in order to keep the British isles under protestant control in 1755.

A republic having comfortable relations with a monarchy would have
been impossible in those days. When the USA became a republic
the experiment was widely expected to fail because it was universally
assumed that monarchy was the natural order of things. The idea
that the English monarchy would have cheerfully accepted a republic
right on their doorstep just doesn't make sense.
Avatar

Quote:
Even in real life, the 1715 rebellion was not a thing of "the clans". The majority
of support came from the North East, not from the Highlands. In the scenario
we are talking about, the role of "the clans" would have been even smaller.


Aye but under occupational circumstances im sure support would have come from further afield than the north-east.

Quote:
The Jacobite claimants to the throne never just claimed the throne
of Scotland. They always claimed to rule England and indeed
the whole British Isles as well. There is no reason to suppose
they would have settled for just ruling Scotland.


and indeed they didnt

Quote:
This phrase "the lowlands" is pretty meaningless. There were big differences
between different parts of "the lowlands", and there were big differences
between different parts of "the highlands".


obviously, but I was working from wikipedia Wink

Quote:
A republic having comfortable relations with a monarchy would have
been impossible in those days. When the USA became a republic
the experiment was widely expected to fail because it was universally
assumed that monarchy was the natural order of things. The idea
that the English monarchy would have cheerfully accepted a republic
right on their doorstep just doesn't make sense.


by this time though the power of the monarchy in England was surely reduced and the Government had the greater power, no?

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter 'Top Scottish Websites' - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Top Site - Topsites Top 100 Scottish Websites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites Tartan Army Topsites View Site Stats Our Scotland Blog Scottish Politics Scottish Lads