1707 and Today

Dave Coull · 1707 and Today

In another part of this Our Scotland website, Aventinian wrote “Oh look, it's 17:07”.

Aventinian’s flippant remarks are rarely worth much contemplation, but it is said that even a team of monkeys will write the complete works of Shakespeare given enough time. There are, indeed, a few coincidences, (as well as many differences) between the present day and 1707. I wrote an essay on that very subject around eleven years ago. Here it is.

page 1

“AND BE A NATION AGAIN” ?

Dave Coull

The vast majority of people in Scotland, no matter how little they may know about history, will need no citation for the title of this piece. It will be instantly recongnisable to them as being from what has become, in the past twenty years or so, the most famous of all Scottish patriotic songs – “Flower of Scotland”. The reason that this line from a modern nationalistic song appears relevant to an essay about the Union of the Parliaments in 1707 is that to many people, then as now, it seemed that the choice lay between Union on the one hand and Independence on the other – with no real “halfway house”. The reason for expressing the quotation as a question is to emphasise that in the 1700s the Scots were facing a genuine dilemma.

The Treaty of Union of 1707 between Scotland and England is regarded very differently in these two countries. It scarcely disturbs the seamless flow of English History at all, but it looms very large indeed in Scottish History, This reflects the fact that, although in theory the Union abolished both the Scottish and the English parliaments, in practice Westminster carried on much as before. The fact that Westminster remains, even to this day, so clearly the English parliament, is one of the reasons why so many Scots nowadays demand a parliament of their own. “The Treaty of Union may claim the status of fundamental law in Britain, but the actual union that it achieved is much more fragile than it appears”1. But, of course, Scotland had its own parliament, and, indeed, a handful of years before the Union that parliament was showing increasing independence. So what happened? It has been suggested that the economic consequences of the Darien disaster led in part to the Union of 1707. To what extend is this true?

In seeking to answer this question I have consulted numerous sources. However, I will not be attempting to summarise the many – and sometimes heated – arguments amongst historians about the Union of 1707. To attempt such summaries in a necessarily brief essay would be to do an injustice to the historians concerned. Although I may quote from various sources, the arguments put forward are essentially my own.

………………………………………………………………………….
1 Brian P. Levack, The Formation of the British State: England, Scotland and the Union 1603-1707 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) 222.

Dave Coull “And Be A Nation Again”

page 2

In order to set the scene for an examination of the extent to which the economic consequences of the Darien disaster led to the Union of 1707, we must first step back a century, to the Regal Union of 1603. Queen Elizabeth the First of England, the “Virgin Queen” after whom Virginia is called, had no children. Powerful men in the Kingdom wanted her to name King James the Sixth of Scotland as her successor. It is debatable whether she ever actually did so, but, in any case, he was the nearest Protestant claimant, so, when Elizabeth died, he was promptly invited to come to London and become King. James had been waiting for this summons, and set out at once. Although Scots had for centuries resisted the attempts of English kings to extend their rule over Scotland, this Union seemed acceptable because it was under a Scottish king. However, James the Sixth had long thought that his own claim to throne of England was better than that of Elizabeth; he had long looked forward to the day when he could at last claim the English crown; and when the opportunity finally came, he had no problem whatsoever with putting the larger kingdom first.

It was a time of expanding horizons, but “Obsession with domestic problems combined with shortage of capital to bar Scotland from any immediate participate in the widening commercial opportunities which stemmed from the discovery of the sea to the Far East and of the continent of America. When, by the early 1600s, she was somewhat better equipped, most of the accessible territories had been pre-empted by monopolistic imperial powers, whilst Scotland had lost her diplomatic independence.”2 This loss of diplomatic independence, and hence of independence in trade, cost Scotland dearly in the Seventieth Century. Scotland was not allowed to trade freely with the English colonies in America and elsewhere, yet got dragged into conflicts with other countries which were to some extent about England protecting its colonial trade. “After the Restoration and particularly when parliament acquired greater freedom after 1686, Scotland was actively launched on a ‘mercantilist’ –type policy, fostering her own industries and seeking to expand overseas trade. But because of the conditions of the Union of 1603 she was embroiled in England’s foreign disputes, but could neither – in compensation – count on either diplomatic or armed support for Scots enterprises overseas nor could she legally engage in English plantation trade.”3 (Under the Navigation Acts passed by the English parliament, Scotland, despite having the same monarch, and despite having to get involved in war with England’s enemies, was treated as a foreign country which was excluded from trading with England’s colonies in America).

……………………………………………………………………….
2 S.G.E. Lythe and J. Butt, An Economic History of Scotland 1100-1939
(Glasgow & London: Blackie, 1975) 64.
3 S.G.E. Lythe and J. Butt, An Economic History of Scotland 1100-1939
(Glasgow & London: Blackie, 1975) 83.

Dave Coull “And Be A Nation Again” page 3

It was little wonder then that “There were few in Scotland who retained much faith in the regal union or in the way it worked. All thinking Scots had by the end of William’s reign more or less concluded that the existing connection between the two kingdoms was unsatisfactory and that it was slowly strangling the weaker partner. But what to do about it was the problem. There agreement ended and argument began…”4 In that argument, one alternative proposed was closer union; the other alternative proposed was that of greater independence.

To some extent, the Scots parliament did in fact seek to achieve greater independence. Parliament ordered an enquiry into the Massacre of Glencoe, something King William the Third could have done without. The “Wool Act” encouraged export of that commodity, while the “Wine Act” of 1703 was equivalent to a declaration of freedom to trade with France, with whom England was at war.”5 Furthermore, the “Act of Peace and War” asserted that, after Queen Anne’s death, no British monarch could declare war “without consent of the Scottish parliament, and no declaration of war without their consent was to be bending upon Scottish subjects”.6 War with France was unpopular because France was a major trading partner. “The French wars, which lasted from 1688 to 1697, and from 1701 until after the Union… were in most respects much more serious in their economic consequences than the Dutch wars… there was the virtual loss of an important market – direct to France.” 7 The English Lord Treasurer (de facto “prime minister”) Godolphin wrote to his Scottish counterpart Seafield” If Scotland were in peace and consequently at liberty to trade with France, would not that immediately necessitate a war betwixt England and Scotland?’ “8 Capping all this was an act which could have ended the Union of the Crowns – the Act of Security of 1703. This pronounced the Scots parliament “hereby Authorized and Impowered to Nominate and Declare the Successor to the Imperial Crown of this Realm…”9

…………………………………………………………………………………………
4 William Ferguson, Scotland’s Relations with England: A Survey to 1707
(Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd, 1977) 185 – 186.
5 Thodora Keith, Commercial Relations of England and Scotland 1603 – 1707
(Cambridge: University Press, 1910) 189.
6 Thodora Keith, Commercial Relations of England and Scotland 1603 – 1707
(Cambridge: University Press, 1910) 190.
7 T.C. Smout, Scottish Trade on the Eve of Union 1660 – 1707
(Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd, 1963) 245.
8 Thodora Keith, Commercial Relations of England and Scotland 1603 – 1707
(Cambridge: University Press, 1910) 190.
9 P.H. Scott, 1707: The Union of Scotland and England
(Edinburgh: Chambers, 1979) 14.

Dave Coull “And Be A Nation Again” page 4

This, then, was the situation just a few years before Union: a Scottish parliament asserting its independence, and the English government – increasingly worried that the Scots would “rise and be a nation again” – issuing threats of reprisal. The atmosphere in Scotland at the time was one of crisis. A parallel which springs to mind (though of course not an exact parallel, but hopefully an illuminating one nevertheless) is with the Weimar Republic in Germany. In Weimar Germany, the Nazis and the Communists both appeared as credible alternatives, and it was possible for the same individuals to swing towards either national-socialism or Marxism. The one thing which was not credible was a continuation of the status quo. Similarly, in Scotland in the 1700s the same individuals might consider either independence or closer union with England; again, the one possibility ruled out was continuation of the status quo. But – to what extent was this atmosphere of crisis due to the economic consequences of the Darien disaster?

The answer is that Darien certainly played a large part in bringing about this atmosphere of crisis. The failure of the Darien colony, and shortly afterwards the collapse of its sponsors the Company of Scotland (in which a very high proportion of the population of Scotland had invested so much both in terms of money and of hope) was indeed un unparalleled disaster. (It was a disaster, but it was not just misfortune, nor accident, nor bad luck. This writer has put forward before his view that “The Company of Scotland could have succeeded. That the Scheme did not in the end succeeded was due to the willful and deliberate destruction of the Company of Scotland, and thus of the economy of Scotland, by King William the Third and the East India Compamy.”10

……………………………………………………………….
10 Dave Coull, “The Case for the Prosecution”,
The people V King William III and the English East India Company, Tony Parker (ed.)
(Dundee: Scotland and the Americas course, University of Dundee, 1997)

Dave Coull “And Be A Nation Again” page 5

Some have suggested that the scheme was flawed from the start: “The flaw in the scheme was the Scots’ inability to give military support to the Darien colonists; an intensely irritated William and an enraged London merchant community simply left the colonists to their fate…” 11 I would maintain that the roles of the monarch and of the English merchants were more actively destructive than simply leaving the Scots colonists to their fate; but that is a side issue to the question before us, so let us not be tempted into pursuing it. We can all agree with John Robertson that “Nevertheless, the Scots’ commitment to the scheme was a strong indication that closer union of the British kingdoms would be hard to reconcile with an exclusively English empire of the sea.”12 We can also agree with Smout that the collapse of the Company of Scotland, “engineered, as many believed, but the malevolence of William III and his English ministers, awoke a fury of discontent against their political and economic inferiority. Although Darien did not ‘create’ a Union of Parliaments. It did more than anything else to provide an atmosphere in which the relative merits of the various schemes of constitutional alignment of separation would be hotly discussed.”13

As Smout says, Darien “did more than anything else” to create this atmosphere. That is an assessment which would be difficult to quarrel with. Certainly, those of us studying history under the course heading “Scotland and the Americas’ are clearly being invited to see Darien and westward enterprises generally as being of immense significance. However, it does have to be said that there were other factors. For example, “The first of a series of four major harvest failures occurred in 169.”14 Unlike Jacob in the Bible, the Scots authorities lacked any contingency plans for this. “As William Patterson acidly commented: ‘In Summer, 1695, they were very busie in giving rewards for having their Corn carried abroad, and a few Months after, as impatiently employed in buying it back again’.”15

There was, also, an unpopular war with France, and the very real possibility of war with England. “The English parliament were determined that the Scots should settle the succession on the Hanover line, and that they
…………………………………………………………………………..
11 John Robertson (ed.), A Union for Empire; Political Thought and the British Union of 1707
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 32.
12 John Robertson (ed.), A Union for Empire: Political Thought and the British Union of 1707
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 32.
13 T.C. Smout, Scottish Trade on the Eve of Union 1660 – 1707
(Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd, 1963) 253.
14 Christopher A. Whatley, “Bought and Sold For English Gold?”: Explaining the Union of 1707
(Dundee: The Economic and Social History Society of Scotland, 1994) 29.
15 T.C. Smout, Scottish Trade on the Eve of Union 1660 – 1707
(Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd, 1963) 246.

Dave Coull “And Be A Nation Again” page 6

should be completely united with England. ‘If we do not go into the Succession or an Union very soon, Conquest will certainly be upon the very first Peace’, wrote Roxbourgh at this time.”16 Roxbourgh was right to be concerned about an English invasion. At an early stage in the crisis, on 17th July 1703, Godolphin sent a gentlemanly and polite, but unmistakable, threat of military force to Seafield. “17 In other words, the English government threatened the Scottish government with a war of conquest. England could feel more certain of military success than had sometimes been the case in the past, because greater wealth, arising in particular from the American colonies, had transformed English military and naval power. Nor did England confine itself to “gentlemanly and polite, but unmistakable, threats if military force.” Smooth but threatening words were backed up with action to show the English meant business. In 1706 three English regiments of foot were moved to the Scottish border. In December of that year these foot soldiers were reinforced on the border by 800 cavalry. In northern Ireland, five more regiments were made ready for the short sea crossing to Scotland.18

But despite economic disaster, famine, and English saber-rattling, Unionism remained deeply unpopular in Scotland. However, very few people had any say in running the country. Members of Parliament represented the “elite”. These Members could be promised royal appointment to lucrative positions; or, more crudely, they could be promised money. The evidence that Members were “bought for English gold” is overwhelming. “There is excellent evidence that the Queen’s Ministers in Scotland, hand-in-glove with the English administration, learnt far more of the arts of Parliamentary ‘management’ between 1703 and 1706, and did not hesitate to use bribery and threats to attach the wavering to their side.”19 Some commentators - one might even say, some apologists for the Union – take a relaxed view of this corruption: “It was an instance of early modern realpolitik, a practical agreement between unequal partners, born and made of political, economic and strategic necessity, which served the needs of the politicians of both countries at the time.”20 Others say “This is latter-day cant. It is naïve in the extreme to regard management merely as a mechanism, and, as such, as innocent as a fly-wheel…”21
……………………………………………………………………
16 Thodora Keith, Commercial Relations of England and Scotland 1603-1707
(Cambridge: University Press, 1910) 192.
17 P.H. Scott, 1707: The Union of Scotland and England in Contemporary Documents
with a Commentary
(Edinburgh: Chambers, 1979) 47.
18 P. H. Scott, 1707: The Union of Scotland and England in Contemporary Documents
with a Commentary
(Edinburgh: Chambers, 1979) 48.
19 T.C. Smout, Scottish Trade on the Eve of Union 1660-1707
(Edinburgh and London: Olivier & Boyd, 1963) 260.
20 Christopher A Whatley, ”Bought and Sold For English Gold”?; Explaining the Union of 1707 (Dundee: The Economic and Social History Society of Scotland, 1994) 47.

Dave Coull “And Be A Nation Again” page 7

When Union did come, the people of Scotland, who had had no say in the matter, showed what they thought of it. There was prolonged rioting in Edinburgh and Glasgow and disturbances in many other towns. Dozen of petitions and addresses poured in to the authorities from every part of Scotland – all of them against Union. There was not a single one in favour. Within a few years, many of those Members of the Scottish Parliament who had voted for the Union repented. “By 1713 the Scottish members of all parties determined to make an effort to dissolve the Union… a motion for its dissolution in the House of Lords failed by four votes.”22

The economic consequences of the Darien disaster certainly played an important part in bringing about a situation in which the status quo was seen as no longer an option , and in which the choices were seen as being between a Union which would please the English or a hazardous attempt to restore independence. However, besides Darien, other factors such as crop failure contributed to the feeling of economic catastrophe. For most of the Scots who reluctantly accepted it, the Union was not intended as a “Union for Empire” as suggested by John Robertson, not so much a way of gaining great riches, but rather more a way of seeking to escape from increasing impoverishment. But the factor which is too often overlooked is neither Darien nor crop failure, but the direct threat of war. The rulers of England had decided that Union was necessary for reasons of military and naval strategy, They were prepared to invade Scotland if they did not get what they wanted. So yes, the economic consequences of the Darien disaster contributed to the atmosphere of crisis which led to the Union of 1707; but famine, bribery, and an invasion army camped on the border, also had something to do with it.

…………………………………………………………….
21 William Fergurson, Scotland’s Relations with England; A Survey to 1707
(Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd., 1977) 185.
22 P.H. Scott,
1707: The Union of Scotland and England in Contemporary Documents with a Commentary
(Edinburgh: Chambers, 1979) 67.

Dave Coull “And Be A Nation Again” page 8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ferguson, William
Scotlands. Relations with England; A Survey to 1707
Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd., 1777

Keith, Theodora
Commercial Relations of England and Scotland 1603 – 1707
Cambridge: University Press, 1910.

Levack, Brian P.
The Formation of the British State: England, Scotland and the Union 1603 – 1707
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Lythe, S. G. E. and Butt, J.
An Economic History of Scotland 1100 – 1939
Glasgow and London: Blackie, 1975.

Parker, A. (ed.)
The People V King William III and the English East India Company
Dundee: “ Scotland and the Americas” course, University of Dundee, 1997.

Robertson, John (ed.)
A Union for Empire: Political Thought and the British Union of 1707
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Scott, P. H.
1707: The Union of Scotland and England in Contemporary Documents with a Commentary
Edinburgh: Chambers, 1979.

Smout, T. C.
Scottish Trade on the Eve of Union 1660 – 1707
Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd, 1963.

RadgeJougal

Are you writing a multivolume book?

Dave Coull

Not even a single volume. Like Errico Malatesta, I'm too busy doing things to write a book. Also like Malatesta, there is a chance that somebody else might collect my essays and publish them. My wife has said she has plans to publish a "Collected Essays by Dave Coull" - after I am dead. She says this will make her feel like I'm still around.

The two essays of mine here on this Our Scotland forum, the "history of anarchism" one and the "1707" one, were both written as part of my history degree at Dundee University, taken in my late fifties, in the late 90s. Of course the only folk who saw those essays initially were tutors in the history department of that university, but I was told that what I had written deserved wider circulation. Both these essays have been "published" on various websites snce then. A guy wrote to me from New Zealand saying he thought my "Enemies of the State" a brilliant essay on this aspect of history, and could he re-produce it on his website. As for the "1707" one, several websites, including that of Siol Nan Gaidheal http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/, asked if they could publish it; Joe Middleton's Scottish News Blog http://politicalnewsfromscotland.blogspot.com also asked permission to publish it, and described it as an "Excellent article on the Treaty of Union by Dave Coull".

When I was at university, some of my essays got criticised for being "a bit too partisan", or "a bit too personal", but these two essays were both graded as "firsts", without any criticisms at all. And yes, there are plenty more where those two came from.

Although Joe Middleton described the "1707" one as "an excellent article from Dave Coull", it was, in fact, written as an academic essay, not as an "article". If it had been written as an "article", then there would have been fewer references, no bibliography, etc, in fact the whole style would have been different. But yes, as well as essays, there have been actual "articles" by me as well. More than enough material for my wife to put a book together. But not in the too near future, I hope.

RadgeJougal

It's like Brittanica, except no one will publish it. LOL!

p.s. By the way, this is better than that Libertarian Socialism one you churned out the other day.

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal wrote "this is better than that Libertarian Socialism one you churned out the other day"

Neither of these essays were "churned out the other day". Both of them were written around ten years ago. And both of them have been highly praised by historians who know a helluva lot more about these particular aspects of history than you do.

"It's like Brittanica, except no one will publish it. LOL!"

As various folk, including the moderators of this Our Scotland forum, have noticed, you have shown personal prejudice against me from the time you first encountered me here on this forum. That being so, your assumption that nobody would want to publish has no objective value, it's merely your usual prejudice. I will never know whether it's true or not. Like I said, "I'm too busy doing things to write a book".

Yes, it's true that I also said "My wife has said she has plans to publish a 'Collected Essays by Dave Coull' - after I am dead. She says this will make her feel like I'm still around". But, by definition, I won't know how successfull that turns out.

RadgeJougal

"And both of them have been highly praised by historians who know a helluva lot more about these particular aspects of history than you do."

I'll take your word for it. I am highly praised by a tribe in Papua New Guinea who worship me as part of a canine cargo cult.

All balloons need a prick. Twisted Evil

Dave Coull

This is the History section of the Our Scotland forum.

For anybody interested in Scottish history, for anybody who has opinions on Scottish history, this particular topic is "1707 and Today".

Radge Jougal has no coherent thoughts on this subject. Radge Jougal has no coherent opinion to offer on historical matters. Radge Jougal has no coherent opinion to offer on the actual topic, instead, he just indulges in his usual practice of personal jibes deliberately intended to lower the tone of discussion to the level which suits him, that of the gutter.

In response to one of his personal jibes, I wrote that both essays of mine which have recently appeared on the Our Scotland forum have been highly praised by historians who know a helluva lot more about these particular aspects of history than Radge Jougal does.

Still saying absolutely nothing at all about the actual historical content of these essays, Radge Jougal now comes back with "I'll take your word for it", and then goes on to make facetious remarks deliberately intended to steer discussion away from the topic "1707 and Today".

I'm now sixty six. All of my life, I have been interested in history. I wrote those essays for folk who are interested in history. I did not write those essays for the likes of Radge Jougal, and I didn't post them here for the likes of Radge Jougal, and, since my opinion of Radge Jougal is extremely low, I really don't give a damn whether Radge Jougal takes my word for anything or not. I know that what I say is true, and I know that folk for whom I have some respect will know that what I say is true, and that is all that matters.

RadgeJougal

You'd do yourself massive favours, if -
a) You actually listened to other people (as opposed to talking over them).
b) Examined how you put your own ideas over.

"B" certainly applies to your essay.

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal wrote "You'd do yourself massive favours, if -
a) You actually listened to other people (as opposed to talking over them)."

In your case, there would be no point, since you never have anything to say. The subject of this topic is "1707 and Today". You have, as usual, said absolutely nothing at all about the actual topic, just confined your remarks to petty personal putdowns, which are the only kind of thing of which your small mind is capable.

"b) Examined how you put your own ideas over.
'B' certainly applies to your essay."

No, that is not true. "B" definitely does not apply to this particular essay. The essay was written as part of my honours course in the History Department of the University of Dundee. The purpose of writing it was to complete my course with a reasonably good grade. Initially, it was to be seen by just one person (now a head of department), a tutor whose job it was, then, to grade these particular essays. What he wrote about this particular essay was "Dave, this is a brilliant essay. I can find absolutely nothing at all to criticise about it".

The essay was, therefore, completely successfull in its original purpose

Now, obviously, if it had been written as an article for a magazine, then that would be a different matter. But it wasn't. I did wonder whether I should make any changes to what I had written ten years ago, but decided against doing so.

RadgeJougal

"In your case, there would be no point, since you never have anything to say."

That's what we feel like saying sometimes.

""B" definitely does not apply to this particular essay."

yes it does. it's not appropriate to a web forum where folk don't have all day to read a book. It's the wrong place... It would work better in a magazine.

'What he wrote about this particular essay was "Dave, this is a brilliant essay. I can find absolutely nothing at all to criticise about it".'

And you woke up, and it was all a dream.

Of course, since you've been to uni, you're now middle class!

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal wrote "And you woke up, and it was all a dream"

I'm quite willing to provide documentary evidence of anything I say. To anybody who has proved to me that they are a real person. That would include Carol, for instance, and Holebender, but not you.

"since you've been to uni, you're now middle class!"

Radge Jougal wrote "as Dave Coull is university educated, that makes him middle class according to many folk"

"Many folk" would be wrong. "Many folk" also think that class can be defined by accent, by how people speak, or by what kind of music they like, and "many folk" are wrong about that, too. These are all examples of a lack of class consciousness, of a poor understanding of what class means. Class is a matter of actual circumstances. My actual circumstances are that in my entire working life, between the ages of fourteen and sixty five, I never had a "salaried position". By my mid-fifties, after the end of the anti-poll-tax campaign, I was being pursued for arrears of poll tax, as well as for various other debts. So I voluntarily got myself declared officially bankrupt. This meant I was in the position where any money I earned above mere subsistence was likely to be taken off me. What was the point in me working for the benefit of my creditors? So I decided I would settle for mere subsistence, by living on a student grant. There was no way the leeches could take any "surplus" off my meagre grant. Not a loan - if you are over the age of fifty, they figure there is no possibility of you earning enough to pay it back, so you are not eligible for a student loan. Of course I knew that, by the time I graduated, at nearly sixty years of age, there would be absolutely no possibility of me embarking on a lucrative, late, new career. But by that time my bankruptcy would be over without the leeches ever getting a single penny out of me, and anyway, I was used to living with very little. I could have the pleasure of studying history at the taxpayers' expense and avoid my creditors. This sounded like a pretty good deal to me. And of course, every word of this is verifiable, if anybody wanted to take the trouble to check it out with a bit of detective work. My bankruptcy is a matter of public record. My applications for hardship funds while at Dundee University are on record. Etc etc etc. Oh, I'm working class, all right. In terms of actual circumstances, in my entire life, I have never been anything else. Oh, and yes, I do mean "working" class. Of the class from which the wage slaves are drawn. By the time I went to university, I had been working for about forty years. Again, this is all a matter of record, if anybody really feels like playing detective. The sort of privileged folk who don't actually start full-time work until after they have been to university would consider forty years a working lifetime. I had been working for a lifetime before I went to university.

But Radge Jougal, of course, is a posh boarding school boy in a cushy salaried position who has learned about the working class by reading that poser Welsh. Unless anybody can prove differently.

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal wrote about my essay on 1707 "it's not appropriate to a web forum"

It wasn't written for a web forum.

But I figured there might possibly be a few folk here who would find it interesting. It's not necessary for everybody, or even a majority, to find it interesting. "Possibly a few" is enough.

Like I said, I did consider making changes to what I had written ten years ago, but decided against this.

"It's the wrong place..."

If the moderators decide that, then presumably it will be taken off. As for your opinion, since I have an extremely low opinion of you, your opinion doesn't matter to me.

RadgeJougal

"It wasn't written for a web forum. "

You've just posted it here.

If you won't listen to my opinion... listen to everyone else's.

"Oh, I'm working class, all right."

Sure, you were.

Dave Coull

I wrote that I am working class. Radge Jougal says "you were".

"Many folk" think that class can be defined by accent, by how people speak, or by what kind of music they like, etc etc etc. "Many folk" are wrong. These are all examples of a lack of class consciousness, of a poor understanding of what class means. Class is a matter of actual circumstances. My actual circumstances are that in my entire working life, between the ages of fourteen and sixty five, I never had a "salaried position". By my mid-fifties, after the end of the anti-poll-tax campaign, I was being pursued for arrears of poll tax, as well as for various other debts. So I voluntarily got myself declared officially bankrupt. This meant I was in the position where any money I earned above mere subsistence was likely to be taken off me. What was the point in me working for the benefit of my creditors? So I decided I would settle for mere subsistence, by living on a student grant. There was no way the leeches could take any "surplus" off my meagre grant. Not a loan - if you are over the age of fifty, they figure there is no possibility of you earning enough to pay it back, so you are not eligible for a student loan. Of course I knew that, by the time I graduated, at nearly sixty years of age, there would be absolutely no possibility of me embarking on a lucrative, late, new career. But by that time my bankruptcy would be over without the leeches ever getting a single penny out of me, and anyway, I was used to living with very little. I could have the pleasure of studying history at the taxpayers' expense and avoid my creditors. This sounded like a pretty good deal to me. And of course, every word of this is verifiable, if anybody wanted to take the trouble to check it out with a bit of detective work. My bankruptcy is a matter of public record. My applications for hardship funds while at Dundee University are on record. Etc etc etc. Oh, I'm working class, all right. In terms of actual circumstances, in my entire life, I have never been anything else. Oh, and yes, I do mean "working" class. Of the class from which the wage slaves are drawn. By the time I went to university, I had been working for about forty years. Again, this is all a matter of record, if anybody really feels like playing detective. The sort of privileged folk who don't actually START full-time work until AFTER they have been to university would consider forty years a working lifetime. I had been working for a lifetime BEFORE I went to university.

But Radge Jougal, of course, is a posh boarding school boy in a cushy salaried position who has learned about the working class by reading that poser Welsh. Unless anybody can prove differently.

RadgeJougal

Haven't I seen that post before?

I told you in the other one that I haven't read anything by IW in years. And I wasn't even into him back then.

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal wrote about my essay on 1707 "it's not appropriate to a web forum"

I pointed out that it wasn't written for a web forum, but I figured there might possibly be a few folk here who would find it interesting. It's not necessary for everybody, or even a majority, to find it interesting. "Possibly a few" is enough.

Okay, so Radge Jougal didn't find it interesting. I can live with that......

"If you won't listen to my opinion... listen to everyone else's" - like I said, if the moderators should decide it is inappropriate to post more detailed historical essays on the History forum, then they will presumably take them off.

RadgeJougal

I make it 16.35

We still have time to stop 17.07 all over again... Very Happy

carol

you were 2 mins out Wink

RadgeJougal

I live life in the fast lane...

carol

not as fast as my mean machine!!!

My faithful Rover Wink

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

I wrote that while some folk think "class can be defined by accent, by how people speak, or by what kind of music they like", this shows a lack of understanding of what class means, that it was a matter of "actual circumstances" (meaning, wealth, poverty, etc.)

Agentmancuso responds that class is a matter of taxonomical convenience.

Taxonomy is "a scheme of classification" (OED). While it can have more specific meanings in some sciences, particularly biology, all of us, scientists included, classify things for convenience. To say that class is a matter of using a scheme of classification for convenience is a rather circular statement. So far as social class is concerned, it makes more sense to base this on "actual circumstances" than on either accent or what kind of music folk like.

Movement between classes may be limited, but it does happen. If you base "class" on accent, then you can get such anomalies as Billy Connolly, or Paul MacCartney, being seen as "working class", despite the fact that they are both multi-millionaires who are also big landowners in the highlands. For fairly obvious reasons, I can't give any famous examples of movement between classes in the other direction, but again, although limited, it does happen.

RFM

Hi David Coull,

It is an excellent essay and certainly deserves wider circulation. I hope you will do so

agentmancuso

RadgeJougal

mairead

I must admit to refusing to pay the poll tax on my room in the nurses home as I was already paying it for my own home.
One month when I went to the bank to draw out my salary, it had been witheld by the bank until I signed a mandate to allow the bank to pay the poll tax arrears I had a accumulated. I refused to sign the mandate and decided it could lie in the bank.
Many years later, several hundred pound was credited to my account. It was ages before I realised what it was. That was like a wee victory for me.

RFM

Hi agentmancuso,

Actually Mr. Coull raises a curious point as to what is meant, or implied in the notion of class standing within a society. I think I can say without fear of serious objection that the English have long been regarded by themselves and others as a very class conscious society. That is not to say they are the only ones by any means, but the question really is what is meant by "class" as status? Mr. Radge Jougal makes the assumption that a university education implies middle class status while Mr. Coull sees middle class status as something else, presumably material well-being.
As we all learned in basic history, the term middle-class comes out of merchantilism, when communities were divided between the aristocracy and the peasantry. The merchants as a class of people who became wealthy and sought a place at the levers of political power in the community became known as the middle-class. Today however, the term seems to mean something else. People who work for a paycheck, but regard themselves as relatively highly paid, adopt the term "middle class" to describe themselves. So construction workers now regard themselves as middle class because their disposable income allows foreign travel, home ownership, frequent vacations and somewhat expensive hobbies. Mr. Coull for instance points to his financial woes as proof of sorts as not being a member of the middle class, sadly enough because his education has not proved financially rewarding. Unfortunately that argument belies a lack of familiarity with the fact that people who regard themselves as middle class often accept poverty as an incident of one's fortune, which plays little or no role in the essential characteristics of their self-perception of middle class values. For instance, a story appeared recently in the Chicago Tribune about a black man who was a door man at an office building in Chicago, who on coming home after work would change into a suit and tie to sit down to dinner with his family and would insist on a certain decorum being rigidly observed at the dinner table. He clearly saw himself as exemplifying middle class values although his work and pay was essentially menial.
I observe that although the Scots have adopted many English values and traits, there seems to be a leveling influence of sorts that abounds within the society. Consider Robert Burns poem "A man's a man for aa' that". Certainly not the sort of poetry that would find much acclaim in England for instance. Or the notion of independence itself. One wonders why so much independence was preserved in 1707 and why the nation was simply not fully adopted and integrated within England as another English county?

mairead

There are many people who view themselves as 'Upper class' not because they are, but because THEY think they are. Big difference.
Hey, we all enter this world naked and leave it in a shroud.
A real classy person is one who can walk and talk with Princes or Paupers, who can hold their own, yet stretch out a hand to the needy.That's true class.

RadgeJougal

agentmancuso

Holebender

I didn't realise that England was an EU member state. Did we get independence while I wasn't looking?

agentmancuso

Holebender

I'm afraid you've lost me. If England is not a member state, and doesn't even have a government, how can it have any sort of relationship with the EU? How does this relationship manifest? I am sure I haven't heard of England having any form or representation at councils of ministers or the Commission. Is this purely based on how MSPs for England's constituencies behave?

I don't regard a few tabloid newspaper headlines as a relationship.

RadgeJougal

agentmancuso

Not sure why you chaps are banging on about 'member states'. That's got bugger all to do with it. I'm talking about the typically contrasting popular view of the EU in England and in Scotland.

In England, the populist angle is to whine about how the EU is bossing us about and stealing all our money and passing silly rules that don't take us into consideration.

In Scotland, we pay very little attention to the EU. Instead, the populist angle here is to whine about how the UK is bossing us about and stealing all our money and passing silly rules that don't take us into consideration.

Different target, same nationalist tripe.

RFM

Radge and Holebender;

UK is a member state of the EU and has been for some time. You might want to look at the UK permament rep office in Brussels. I seem to recall the Mr. Major was there for a while.

However agentmancuso's point is that what passes for nationalism is really parochialism.

Holebender

RFM

Well grandson,

I believe it was you who posted on on Jan 12 that you had not heard England had any sort of representation at the council of ministers and the day before that you had never heard England was a member state.

What happened there boy? Forget to look at your passport for symbols or was it some other Holebender that said that? Or is it some dimwitted argument that UK is not England?

agentmancuso

Holebender

I'll leave it for others to decide how guid a hingin ye gave yersel.

RFM, are you really that hard of understanding? Where to begin? You are the one trying to teach your granny to suck eggs so that hardly makes me your grandson. And if I were your grandson, may I apologise for having missed your hundredth birthday all those years ago? The truth is I thought you were dead, long dead. The stuff you posted about England's representation, etc. has me baffled. Would you please spell out England's relationship with the EU as you understand it, just so I know how to respond?

RadgeJougal

RadgeJougal

RFM

Well sonny, as UK has been a member of the EU since 1993, I doubt that you could hardy be more than 14 years old. There is little need to explain why the earth is round or the sun rises in the morning or that foolishness talk is explained as giving one rope to hang one's self. All of the information is quite easily available to anyone who wants to read, rather than talk of sucking eggs.

RFM

Radge,

Yes I did.

Holebender

RFM, do you actually know or understand that there is a difference between England and the UK? The UK is a member of the EU, England is not, in its own right. It is your lack of apparent understanding of these facts which has hampered any possible response from me.

As to my age, the hint that my grandmothers would both be well into their second centuries if they were still alive might have provided a clue. Stupid boy.

RFM

Holebender,

Rhetoric as it was taught formerly many years ago in the university was the skill of being able to argue and put forth all sides of a question. That required however understanding of the subject matter. Now we have simply argument, the empty headed method of making inane observations on topics we little understand as a misguided attempt to show intellect.

Try to do a little better and read something about the EU, who its members are and why there is unequal participation before you start with inane arguments. I offered the observation about your possible age to excuse your previous statements. Saying you are older does you little credit but so be it.

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

RadgeJougal

One and the same in both cases. Pretty much. The problems with both unions stem mainly from their political and governmental set ups.

Holebender

RFM. As you've indicated nothing to the contrary I can only assume you have no understanding of the differences between England and the UK, and which is the member of the EU. Judging by your last post you seem to have no understanding of anything and choose to cover your ignorance by obfuscation. I won't waste any more time on you.

agentmancuso

RadgeJougal

RFM

Actually Radge I think the argument you are trying to develop is boring.
If you go back and read your own postings, trying to say that you understood Scotland and England were not within the EU as independent communities, but were within the EU under the collective nexus of the UK is beyond disingenuous. Boneheaded is the word that occurs to me.

RadgeJougal

I'm not trying to develop it.

"Boneheaded is the word that occurs to me."

Well, the internet always sinks to the lowest level. Why did you try to explain something to me, which I made clear I already understood?

RFM

Like I said.

agentmancuso

Hey! You're all supposed to be arguing with me, not each other Shocked

RFM

Yeah!
Go get him Radge.

Jimbo

Hi RFM,

how're you?

You asked..

RFM

Hi Jimbo,

Doing OK. A Happy New Year to You and much obliged for the reference.

Jimbo

Hi RFM,

I'm pleased to hear that, and a happy new year to you too.

If you can get hold of these books RFM you'll really enjoy them.

The foreword to Lockharts Memoirs which was re-published in 1995 is written by the historian Paul Scott who writes:

"Lockhart gave the game away in an unflinching exposure of a very sordid transaction. If you wanted conceal the facts and maintain that the Union was an act of enlightened statesmanship, then you certainly did not want to encourage people to read Lockhart. His book has been suppressed by tacit censorship. For this reason it has never received the recognition which it deserves as a work of literature as well as an important historical source."

RFM

H'm, curiouser and curiouser as Alice said to the Queen of Hearts.

I have been purchasing books through a charity somewhere near Fife, called "Book Donors". It is very difficult to find books of Scottish authorship in America. So far it has been a wonderful surprise.
Kind regards,