Scots 'supported' union signing

Aventinian · Scots 'supported' union signing

I'm not one to politicise history, but I was wondering you feel about this idea.

From the BBC:

Scots 'supported' union signing

An academic has sparked new debate about the Act of Union after claiming that the treaty may have had legitimate strong support in Scotland.
The unification of Scotland and England in 1707 has long been the source of contention among some Scots.

But ahead of its 300th anniversary, historian Christopher Whatley claimed the deal was desired by Scotland.

He said his research had scotched the claim that the Act's Scottish signatories were corrupt.

Over the years it has been claimed that Scots who put their names to the treaty had been bribed by the English.

The event famously spurred Robert Burns to write in an attack on the loss of Scottish independence: "We are bought and sold for English gold. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation."

However Prof Whatley, vice principal of Dundee University, claimed his five-years of research on the subject had shown the popular accounts of the passage of Union through the last Scottish Parliament to be inaccurate.

He said the evidence indicated that some parliamentarians gave their backing to the move because it brought practical benefits beyond wiping out debts in Scotland.

"It became clear that unionists in Scotland were not the traitors they have been portrayed as," he said.

"Many were principled in their support of a British union that would strengthen Scotland economically and against their enemies - France, the Jacobites and the Catholic Church.

"Patriotism was certainly not the preserve of the opponents of the Union - even though it is these politicians Scots today are inclined to pay homage to."

In his new book, Scots and the Union, Prof Whately has claimed that the Unionists cared deeply for the future of the Scottish nation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/5378214.stm

SLG

See http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/ftopic2400.php

scottishjameseboy

Aventinian
you talk some B**L S**T, I have read some of your postings and find them so pointless, as you have not shown any true backing to your comments. As for the BBC it is a joke and should have been put down and out of its misery years ago of course it will try to say Scot's wanted the treaty of the union because with Scottish independence it will cease to exist, as there will be no "British" left for it to call its self. The treaty was forced upon Scotland so that a German "Hanoverian" could become the king as he was a protestant unlike the Stewart's who were catholics. The "Nobles were paid off "bought and sold for English gold" while not caring how the common Scot felt, Also General Wade was waiting on the border to invade and terror-is Scotland "rebellious Scots to crush", if it was not signed. As for the french involvement that was because Charles Edward Stewart was born in France and "Jacobite" was the term given to a follower of king James ll who was abducted to let the Non-English speaking fore-mentioned foreigner take the crown. James is the Anglicized version of Jacob hence the term Jacobite I know as it is my name!! If the common people wanted the union why so many Jacobean uprisings? The fact parliamentarians were for it does not matter as they are elected to "serve us not for us to serve them". Hope that clears up some misconceptions would love to continue this wee chat but I am going to bed now.

scottishjameseboy

That was written before I clicked on SLG's link and now see I didn't have to bother writing it at all!!

Aventinian

scottishjameseboy

Yes aventinian the stewarts (or stuarts before having to change their name) were natives well at least as native as certain hanoverians and can be linked directly to the Bruce. As you will undoutably know yourself Scottish history is at best very complext. Different "respected historians" have for many years have had conflecting accounts, of what happened back the times of Wallace and the Bruce right up on till around the 18/19 centuries. you are spot on about the line from that extremely offensive song, it was written after the Jacobites got down to Derby before the battle of culloden I did'nt mean it in the context it was written in. it was not meant as a direct "quote". I am also sorry for causing anyone any distress with my opening line, but at least you know my reaction to the report. Even with the claim of right being signed Prince Charlie had a right to challenge for the crown as it was his birth right, just like anyone would. I am a protestant and would have been happy to be in the first line of Jacobites ready to die for a free country, being ruled by a king that had some connection to my homeland and had the same native tongue as myself (although being born in france he was of Scottish decend). As to the obvious merits of the union, what are they? I have heard many talk of them but not what they are the only obvious merits I have ever seen were of English advantage. as they renaged on the treaty after its signing or so say "respected historians". MY appologies mixing General Wade in the fight at this time it was other army leaders who I can't recall of hand right now but they were there to do that job still. I always have problems trusting "respected historians" even ones who are vice-principals of university's dunno why maybe 'cause they think they can write fancy books and dress them up enough so no one will question thier contents. I will get hold of his book at my first oppertunity and read it but I still stand by my convictions as I am a man of principals. I hope not to fall out with you but when it comes to Scotland I get really diffinsive and may act out of character as like then. Scotland means everything to me and her independence I can not understand unionists (well scottish ones!) as the union has stollen from Scotland our industries, money, etc tried to rob us of our identity and inflicted misery on us, eg poll tax, maggie thatcher to name but a few. Thankfully I didn't get latin at school but remember getting told " latin is a language dead as dead can be it killed the b****y romans and now its killing me!! not read through this for spelling mistakes as I am too tired so i beg you pardon if there are some along with minor decrpencys with what I have wrote.

Highlander

mairead

Of course the Stewarts are directly descended from King Robert the Bruce through his daughter Marjorie's marriage to Walter (The Steward) Stewart. The only child of that marriage was Robert 11 who ascended the throne on the death of his uncle, King David, the son of Bruce.
Also, the anthem God save the King was written in its original state as a hymn to the deposed King James and was hijacked by Westminster after the 1715. The insulting verses were added after the 1745 by the Hanovarians.
So in effect, everytime the Brits sing the anthem, they are singing a Jacobite hymn. Think on that Highlander.
Nor were the Jacobites Rebels, as they are portrayed by historians and academics. They were loyal to their TRUE king who was deposed by the Whigs in Westminster in favour of William of Orange.
The Protestant Westminster government were the rebels. Further more, there was never any rebellions by Jacobites, but there was risings against the Dutch usurper who had schemed with Westminster long before the usurpation actually took place.
It was Westminster again who later persuaded Queen Anne Stewart to leave the succession to the Hanovarians and cut out her own half brother by telling lies regarding the Jacobites.
At the time of the Hanovarian succession there were 52 people nearer to the throne than Sophia of Hanover and her son George but they were all of the wrong religious leaning.
Also, until the usurpation of William, all Scottish monarchs were born in Scotland and entitled to be rulers of that country.
The truth of Scotland's history has been suppressed for hundreds of years but it is now creeping slowly from the shadows of the past.

agentmancuso

"Nor were the Jacobites Rebels, as they are portrayed by historians and academics. They were loyal to their TRUE king who was deposed by the Whigs in Westminster in favour of William of Orange. "

'True king' in what sense? Only if you accept that kings are annointed by God and pass on their right to rule through primogeniture. That's a unusual position to take these days.

It might be worth remembering that the majority of the Hanovarian army at Culloden were Scots.

mairead

Agentmancuso,
Yes there were Scots in the Hanovarian side, fighting under the orders of their chiefs, and also as members of the British army, but they did not make up the bulk of the Hanovarian force.
Cumberland left London with several regiments of Hanovarian troops as well as some English and Scottish regiments of the British army and some Welsh troops on the 28th January.
On the eighth of February, the Prince of Hesse, Cumberland's brother-in-law arrived at Leith with several regiments of Hessian troops, so where you get the statement that the bulk of the Hanovarian force was Scots is a mystery to me.
I would also like to add tht had it not been for the exhaustion, starvation and lack of weapons in the Scots forces, the story might well have had a different ending.
The bulk of the Scots army had spent the night previous to Culloden marching to Nairn and back. Their supplies were non existent and their weapons running out of ammunition.
Culloden was no gallant victory for Cumberland but was a glorious defeat for the Jacobites and the bloody aftermath of the battle has rendered the name of Hanover infamous, in the annals of history.

Highlander

azzuri

Just a note: I'm moving this thread to the 'History' section.

Carry on... Very Happy

Aventinian

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

mairead

Agentmancuso.
You are absolutely correct in saying that this was not a battle between the Scots and English. It was a battle between supporters of the rightful king, a Catholic and a Protestant usurper.
There were many English Jacobites who fought and fell in the Stewart cause. The city of Manchester raised an entire regiment to join the Jacobites and several English nobles had already been set to the tower for their Jacobite tendencies. Many were also executed after the Battle of Preston in Lancashire which was fought on the day before the battle of Sheriffmuir, and on the day that Sheriffmuir was being fought, Thousands of Highlanders and English Jacobites at Preston, were being rounded up to meet their fate, either on the gallows, the block, or to be sent to the colonies as slaves.
History has been contorted and the false Scotland V England battle is crap.

Highlander

I like most of what you wrote in your two posts.

However

Highlander

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

Highlander

mairead

Highlander,
Sorry, but the law which states that only Protestants can rule was NOT made by the people. It was made because the Protestant noble factions in Westminster who feared a return of the days of Bloody Mary Tudor, (Daughter of Henry V111) when hundreds of protestants were burned at the stake on her orders, for their religious beliefs.
James V11 was never deposed by the Scots either, nor did he abdicate. He was forced to flee for his life as his second wife had given birth to a son, James, Prince of Wales, (Father of Charles Edward Stewart) six weeks before the arrival of William of Orange and the Protestant Parliament saw the birth as the beginning of a Catholic Dynasty.
Again, you are wrong my friend, God Save the Queen WAS a Jacobite Hymn for King James, but if you refuse to accept fact then I am not going to argue the point. Believe what you will.
However. if you are proud of being British I suggest you read up on Scottish history as well as English, and I am afrraid that being British is now on the way out.
A True Scot to the end, never British.

Highlander

mairead

Sorry pal, Wrong again. It was first sung after the 1715 by the Jacobites. Probably it's first national airing in England was after Geordie altered it in the wake of Cumberlands slaughter at and after Culloden.

Highlander

Give me one reference to it being used in 1715. You can look up numerous history books to see that it was 1st used in 1745 and it was published in a book in 1744.

mairead

You are probably right enough as to when it was first published and sung openly, but it was written by and sung by the Jacobites long before then. Many Jacobite songs were, like their meetings and by necessity, only sung in secret and in the company of Jacobites. I will find the old book where my information came from and pass you the title as soon as I can.

Highlander

mairead

Highlander,
You will find the information in a book called 'The Romance of the White Rose' which was written in the 19th century.
No proof by the way, does not mean something did not happen. There is much which is known yet cannot be proved.

FALSYDE

As a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland I do dable a wee bit in history and I cannot for the life of me understand where this man Whatley could even get to first base with his thesis that the Scots were in favour of the Union, what about the riots reported by Defoe? what about the actual listings of the precise amounts of money paid and to whom paid?

To quote another respondent, this is pure boll..........s. I would doubt if his university tenure could, would or should survive this nonsense.

Come on Nail, lay it out in detail for the daft laddie in Dundee.

SLG

I don't think Whatley actually says that the Scots supported the Union - that's just headline grabbing. I think he says that many of the Scots ruling class supported the Union.

Anthropos

mairead

probably right enough Anthropos, Just like today, what the people want and what they get are often two different things, although these days there are at least elections which put some people in power and not just accident of birth as it was then.

agentmancuso

mairead

And just where exactly did I say I believed in the divine right of Kings????

agentmancuso

makar · 1707

I'll post something on the anthem later - but for now, a question: can anyone give me details / chapter and verse / background etc. on the English force lying in wait in case the Scots DIDN'T sign? Above the leader is said to be Wade, which is wrong of course; but who was it??

Jimbo · Re: 1707

Scots 'supported' union signing

1707

Re: 1707