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.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> History
Cookie

The Act of Union - was it a good thing?

I haven't read through all the posts so forgive me if this topic has been discussed before.  I was wondering what people generally feel about the Act of Union.

Personally, think it has served Scotland well.  We benefited from British industrialisation and became the workshop of the Empire.  As the UK we have fought in many noble causes together, namely the two worked wars.  Even in post war Britain, which many characterise nothing but doom and gloom, you have the creation of the welfare state.

Culturally, I also feel that Scotland has lost none of its identity.  Scots are still very aware of who they are and our culture has been exported around the globe.

As this sites token Unionist I fear a backlash here, but generally, does anyone else agree?
Lord Pitsligo

Re: The Act of Union - was it a good thing?

Cookie wrote:

As this sites token Unionist I fear a backlash here, but generally, does anyone else agree?


Well, I wouldn't describe you as the site's token unionist, there is another  Wink

But broadly, I agree with you. Having failed to conquer Scotland, England used economics to defeat us, and wanted us as another territory to lord it over. Sadly for them we ended up taking them on at their own game, being more successful in industry, commerce and education than they eved dreamt of. The Enlightenment was something they didn't forsee, and it elevated Scotland to the leader of civilisation.

However, it hasn't worked for us for over 100 years, and its time to end it.
Scott2006

In thefirst 50 years after the Union - Scotland suffered in the rural areas from mass murder at various times from Union troops.

Certain commercial advantages eventually appeared in the age of Empire, but the English got proportionally richer than the Scottish as the population had to immigrate or join the army /East India Company etc to have a higher standard of living.

As a result of the Empire, Scotland still has a smaller "middle class" than England. Is that a long lasting benefit?

Since the end of WWI the marginal benefits from Scotland as a whole - has led to a "Second Division" Scottish elite as the best Scotland turns out choose to move abroad or move to London for a more challenging existence.

Some good things have happened as a result of the union - can't think of any of them recently.
If Scotland had been an independent country, would our troops have been in Iraq/Afghanistan? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Would terrorists have targeted Glasgow Airport? Probably not.
jamesieboy

In the past, the distant past, the union served a number of people well because Britain had an empire.

The empire provided jobs and opportunities for many as the empire took (some would say raped!) the massive resources that parts of Africa, India and Canada.

During the Victorian period the British empire reached its zenith due to the lack of competition. The riches were unevenly spread, of course, and there was horrendous poverty and low life expectancy in London, Liverpool and Glasgow, for example.

The twentieth century saw Britain decline in its influence and prosperity. New competitors arrived on the scene after the two world wars and manufacturing production in particular started to slide.

Nowadays the union is becoming more irrelevant by the day. Scotland runs its own Health Service, Education system and many more responsibilies. As oil revenues slowly decline the country will find a more-than-adequate replacement in its nascent renewable energy industry (wind, tidal and wave energy in particular, not to mention new HEP stations coming on line).

We will be more than self-sufficient in 15 years time (according to Alex Salmond) and that will more than compensate from the slow decline of oil and gas.

Scotland can build on this. We have failed to exploit our abundant water and forestry resources. There will always be a need for both. Our whisky industry is buoyant as is our tourism sector (where in the world are there better golf courses?).

I wish England well in the future. They can also benefit from tide and wave energy (in the Severn, for example) but we can still be close and co-operate on many issues even after (political) independence. Ireland isn't exactly cut-off from Britain at the moment. We can continue to be allies when it comes to many aspects of foreign policy.

In the meantime, it is time to face the facts - the union is dying, long live the union. (Not!)
Dave Coull

Re: The Act of Union - was it a good thing?

Cookie wrote:
As this sites token Unionist
What about Neil? Come to that, what about Aventinian, who posts here every day, and who gives the impression of being a more combative, not to mention diehard, Unionist than you?
Cookie wrote:
We benefited from British industrialisation
Industrialisation would have happened anyway, "British" or not. It is usually thought, by both their critics and their admirers, that Scottish supporters of Bonnie Prince Charlie (the only man in history to be named after three sheepdogs) were all romantic and backward looking, but this is far from being generally true. Some of his rich and influential supporters, as well as being supporters of restoring a Scottish parliament, were also keen on modernisation and industrialisation. I'm no supporter of Jacobitism, I just mention that as an example. While there is no way we can conduct any experiment in "alternative histories", whether industrialisation was a good thing or a bad thing or just a thing, there is no reason for believing that a Scotland in which the Act of Union never took place would not have pressed ahead with industrialisation
Cookie wrote:
and became the workshop of the Empire.
Again, there is no way we can conduct any experiment in alternative histories, but I'm far from convinced that an industrialised Scotland in which the Act of Union had not taken place, but which, nevertheless, remained part of the UK, could have been permanently excluded from the Empire trading system.
Cookie wrote:
As the UK we have fought in many noble causes together, namely the two worked wars.
It is highly debatable how "noble" the First World War was.  As for the Second World War, yes of course Hitler and co had to be stopped, but they would never have got started in the first place if it hadn't been for the effects of the questionably-noble First World War. Besides, Canadians fought alongside us (as an independent country), Australians fought alongside us (as an independent country), New Zealanders fought alongside us (as an independent country) and large numbers of citizens of India (already well on its way to its independence immediately after WW2) fought alongside us.
Cookie wrote:
Even in post war Britain, which many characterise nothing but doom and gloom, you have the creation of the welfare state.
Although the NHS was introduced by a Welshman, Aneurin Bevan, a lot of the driving force for it came from Scotland, and there is no reason to think that an independent Scotland wouldn't have come up with an NHS. It might even have done so sooner.

Anyway, the fact is, the Act of Union of 1707 happened. I actually know several folk who think that the Act of Union was probably a good thing for Scotland at the time, but who think that the best thing for Scotland  NOW is independence. When we finally get our referendum, the question being asked will not be about "What do you think of the Act of Union of 1707?", nor will it be about "What do you think of Bonnie Prince Charlie, or, come to that matter, King Billy?". It will be about what is the best thing for Scotland  NOW,  not what was the best thing in the past.
agentmancuso

Re: The Act of Union - was it a good thing?

Dave Coull wrote:
It will be about what is the best thing for Scotland  NOW,  not what was the best thing in the past.


Spot on, Mr Coull.
Stevie

The Act of getting screwed over.  Scotland lost it's government against the wishes of the people.  Our economy became subservient to English government demands.  We weren't even broke as so many believe because within a very brief period of time the English properly organised our tax collection system and were raking in £800,000 (not much today but enough to keep Napoleon at bay and press English interests abroad - should I not say the interests of the wealthy few) .  Oil revenue stolen, our economy unstimulated for 100s of years.  No seat of government to fend off Thatcher"s excesses.  

You say union, I say onion.  Let's call the whole thing off.

But welcome Cookie, it's good to have different perspectives.
William_Cleland

Re: The Act of Union - was it a good thing?

Cookie wrote:
We benefited from British industrialisation and became the workshop of the Empire.


http://www.scottishmining.co.uk/271.html

No.297. Margaret Archibald, 9 years old, putter:
Began work two months since; goes down with father at five in the morning and comes up at five at night; gets porridge and pieces sent down; the work is o'er sore for me, as I have a boiling foot [very sore foot, which discharges much matter]; was off work eight days out of last fortnight - could not gang; my employment is to wheel the tubs [carts], which hold 8cwt. of coal; brother John has been three years below, and is 12 years of age; assists to wheel, as the distance is great from dyke to the pit-bottom and the dip and rise 1 in 6.

[Reads badly. The mother states that she was compelled, from circumstances, to send this child; although she was bound to acknowledge that the work had quite broken the child's spirits, as well as spoiled the form of her feet.]

No.304. Janet Brown, age 12, putter:-
Worked below four years; works 10 and 12 hours; wheels 4cwt. of coal in hutchies; pit-roads are very wet, and as I have an o'erstiff ancle canna work without great pain; sister Margaret, who is 10 years old, has wrought two years, and her feet are so sair that she canna wear shoes, and the rails cut her feet so as to make her lie idle often; eldest sister, 17, with deformed ancles, cannot wear shoes. [Cannot read.]
Morph

After Darrien the move to union can be justified if that is your wish. However from then on it is speculation how Scotland would have got on as a global power.

However in the 1910's the Socialism which was popular in Scotland may have led to a soviet ally on the British mainland (although again i am speculating)
Stevie

Was an Act of union a good thing?

If you greatly enjoy getting elephant-dicked in every possible orifice, 24 hours a day, 7/7 for just over 300 hundred years without respite, rest or withdrawal then yes it's a wonderful thing.
Morph

I do think you are simplifiying the situation a little BH the union allowed Scotland a chance to grow like never before. Glasgow would not be the same today if it wasnt the Second City of the Empire. I agree that i would be better for an independant Scotland today but not after Darrien.
Luke P

Bravehand wrote:
Was an Act of union a good thing?

If you greatly enjoy getting elephant-dicked in every possible orifice, 24 hours a day, 7/7 for just over 300 hundred years without respite, rest or withdrawal then yes it's a wonderful thing.


rofl - so you enjoyed it then?!!!
Dave Coull

Morph wrote:
I do think you are simplifiying the situation a little BH
Okay, I agree that Bravehand over-simplified the situation. But so does Morph........
Morph wrote:
the union allowed Scotland a chance to grow like never before
Well, that depends partly on how you measure "growth", and partly on exactly which decades you are comparing. There had been periods in Scotland's earlier history marked by dramatic "growth" (for instance, during the reign of David the First). On the other hand, there was little or no growth in the Scottish economy in the decades immediately after the Union. Yes, there was growth LATER in the 18th Century, but it is debatable to what extent this was "thanks to the Union". Industrialisation would have happened anyway, "British" or not. It is usually thought, by both their critics and their admirers, that Scottish supporters of Bonnie Prince Charlie (the only man in history named after three sheepdogs) were all romantic and backward looking, but this is far from being generally true. Some of his rich and influential supporters, as well as being supporters of restoring a Scottish parliament, were also keen on modernisation and industrialisation. I'm certainly no supporter of Jacobitism, I just mention that as an example. While there is no way we can conduct any experiment in "alternative histories", whether industrialisation was a good thing or a bad thing or just a thing, there is no reason for believing that a Scotland in which the Act of Union never took place would not have pressed ahead with industrialisation. Also, I am far from convinced that an industrialised Scotland in which the Act of Union had not taken place, but which, nevertheless, remained part of the UK, could have been permanently excluded from the Empire trading system. So, no, I don't think there is any unambiguous "proof" that the Union was ever a good thing.

Now, I'm a historian. That means I'm somebody who is interested in history as such. But although I am somebody who is interested in history as such, in one way, I think there is little point in the question "The Act of Union   -   was it a good thing?", because, good, bad, or a bit of a mixture of both, it happened. Nobody held a referendum to ask the people of Scotland what they thought about it THEN, and they're certainly not going to give us a retrospective referendum on it now. When we finally get our referendum, the question being asked will not be about "What do you think of the Act of Union of 1707?", nor will it be about "What do you think of Bonnie Prince Charlie?", nor will it be "What do you think of King Billy?", or any other question about Scottish history. The question will be about what is the best thing for Scotland  NOW.
Morph

I agree Dave that alternative history is not the way to conclude any debate. However It was always going to take decades to recover from Darien and economic problems leading to the union, there was never going to be over night recovery.

Also i agree that the shortbread tin view of the Jacobites is flawed however the access Scotland had to the East India company and other colonial areas did contribute to the growth of cities in Scotland.
Luke P

Colonial opportunities by the bucketload - plantations in the Caribbean, farms in Zambia, logging camps in Canada, prospectors in the USA, administration and engineering posts in India, sheep ranches in New Zealand...

I don't know if the 'Scottish diaspora' is quantifiable, as it was always bound up within the British colonial diaspora. It probably numbers in the many millions, outnumbering the current Scottish population by some margin. Off the top of my head I would hazard that those of at least partial Scots ancestry around the world probably number 20-40 million.

Scotland without the union, and without the empire is not the Scotland we know today and the lives of those colonial entrepreneurs and migrants and their descendents were altered (improved?) forever.
Holebender

But who's to say Scotland wouldn't have developed a colonial phase without the union? Loads of European countries, large and small, had colonies.

Scotland was already moving towards a colonial phase before the union, and if Scotland had not been stripped of her ruling elite by the regnal union of 1603 it may have been far more vigorous in its empire building.
Luke P

Was Scotland stripped of her ruling elite? I was taught that James VI made England his b***h and turned Royston into his private fiefdom for hunting and partying.

You are right that many small European countries had colonies. They did not have the largest empire the world has ever known however. Nor did Scotland show any particular prowess in the matter during the Darien fiasco. As Dave Coull pointed out on another thread, this was in part due to opposition from England. Scotland as a colonial power could not have thrived in competition with England - and it did not...

The issue is not what if...? The issue is whether what actually happened was favourable or unfavourable.
Holebender

Never mind Darien, consider Nova Scotia.

Scotland was stripped of its ruling elite, who all decamped south to the Royal Court. Darien was, as much as anything, a result of a conflict of interest on the part of the Monarchy. The Monarch, who should have treated all his kingdoms equally, favoured England and did everything in his power to ensure the success of that one kingdom at the cost of any other.

No-one's talking about having the biggest or the most brutal or the bloodiest empire (no source of pride) only of having overseas colonies which would have made a diaspora possible.
Luke P

Holebender wrote:
Never mind Darien, consider Nova Scotia.

Scotland was stripped of its ruling elite, who all decamped south to the Royal Court. Darien was, as much as anything, a result of a conflict of interest on the part of the Monarchy. The Monarch, who should have treated all his kingdoms equally, favoured England and did everything in his power to ensure the success of that one kingdom at the cost of any other.

No-one's talking about having the biggest or the most brutal or the bloodiest empire (no source of pride) only of having overseas colonies which would have made a diaspora possible.


Well, just because they didn't live in Scotland any more doesn't mean Scotland was stripped - they had made a much larger kingdom for themselves. Perhaps we should not consider Nova Scotia as the first Scottish colony, but England. Was James VI not a Scot? Why would he favour England therefore?

The British Empire was the biggest, but by no means the most brutal or bloodiest. The Spanish and the Romans easily outdid us on that front. And of course you can't have a bloodless empire...
Luke P

Luke P wrote:
Colonial opportunities by the bucketload - plantations in the Caribbean, farms in Zambia, logging camps in Canada, prospectors in the USA, administration and engineering posts in India, sheep ranches in New Zealand...

I don't know if the 'Scottish diaspora' is quantifiable, as it was always bound up within the British colonial diaspora. It probably numbers in the many millions, outnumbering the current Scottish population by some margin. Off the top of my head I would hazard that those of at least partial Scots ancestry around the world probably number 20-40 million.

Scotland without the union, and without the empire is not the Scotland we know today and the lives of those colonial entrepreneurs and migrants and their descendents were altered (improved?) forever.


I might just add that it's worth looking at how Scotland benefitted other parts of the world with her empire and not just herself. David Livingstone for example, remains a folk hero in southern Africa. Plus of course countless engineers and inventors came from Scotland and took their technology round the world.
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
The issue is not what if...? The issue is whether what actually happened was favourable or unfavourable.
It was probably favourable for some folk, and unfavourable for some other folk. A lot of history isn't black and white but shades of grey. But in any case, although you say "The issue is........." , in the real world of 2009 there is a far more important issue facing us. In the real world of 2009, the union of 1707 is of secondary importance. The thing that is of primary importance is what we do NOW . I have had a life long interest in history, not just Scottish history but world history. But although I am somebody who is interested in history as such, in one way, I think there is little point in the question "The Act of Union   -   was it a good thing?", because, good, bad, or a bit of a mixture of both, it happened. Nobody held a referendum to ask the people of Scotland what they thought about it THEN, and they're certainly not going to give us a retrospective referendum on it now. When we finally get our referendum, the question being asked will not be about "What do you think of the Act of Union of 1707?", nor will it be about "What do you think of Bonnie Prince Charlie?", nor will it be about "What do you think of King Billy?", or any other question about Scottish history. The question will be about what is the best thing for Scotland  NOW.
Luke P

Interesting article on the subject here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/educati...udy-scottish-diaspora-controversy

Slightly painful but not surprising statistic: "half of fourth-year history students in Scottish schools appear to believe that Scotland was conquered by England". I guess that's what happens when you leave education to the movie industry... (or grumpy grandads?)

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