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.
|
Dave Coull
|
Unionism "As Scottish as Nationalism"What follows is an article by Colin Kidd, Professor of Modern History at the University of Glasgow, which appeared in the Scotsman of 22nd December 2008. I will send my own comments on it as a separate thing.
HEART OF UNIONISM WAS BUILT ON SCOTLAND'S ANTI-ENGLISH FEELINGS
Unionism is every bit as authentic a part of Scotland's political heritage as Nationalism, argues COLIN KIDD
UNIONISM is sometimes commended as a sensible and pragmatic acceptance of the facts of life on this island. Wealth and power, so the argument runs, are concentrated in the south-east of England, and Scots have long needed to make some sort of accommodation with the brutal truths of political geography, and still do.
Thus Unionism comes to be regarded, as much by its own supporters as well as by its nationalist critics, as a practical necessity, but something essentially un-Scottish. Nationalism, it seems, springs from the Scottish heart, while Unionism, which is alien, inauthentic and at best a kind of defeatist compromise with the English, speaks only to the head.
This set of assumptions finds vivid reinforcement in the work of the dominant literary figure in 20th-century Scotland, Hugh MacDiarmid. MacDiarmid, who listed his recreation in Who's Who as Anglophobia, clearly regarded Unionism as a base betrayal of everything that made Scotland authentically Scotland.
He denounced the Unionist establishment of inter-War Scotland as 'the toadies and lickspittles of the English Ascendancy'. Unionism, he believed, was inimical to cultural life and to any kind of serious creativity because it was typical of the lethargic passivity experienced by peoples who had been colonised and had their confidence knocked out of them by their oppressors. Unionists were, to all intents and purposes, collaborators with English Imperialism.
Are these assumptions valid? Is there more to Scottish Unionism than a quisling creed? These questions first seriously occurred to me five years ago when I received an invitation to deliver the Carlyle Lectures in the History of Political Thought at Oxford University in the academic session 2005-6. Without sharing MacDiarmid's prejudices on the subject, I did share some of his assumptions. I worried that Unionism was a drab, derivative creed, and that I might not find enough material – or material of sufficient interest – to entertain the history dons of Oxford during six hours of public lectures.
To my surprise, the more I investigated this most unpromising of topics, the more I encountered the creativity and subtlety of Unionist political thought. Over the centuries Scottish historians, churchmen, philosophers, political theorists and lawyers had written a tremendous amount of very sophisticated work on a variety of difficult questions relating to the Union.
How should England and Scotland unite? What national peculiarities should receive explicit constitutional protection within the new British state, and, if so, how? Should the Union of 1707 be described as the Act of Union or the Treaty of Union? If this last question seemed technical and abstruse, mighty consequences flowed from it. If the Union were simply the Act of an English parliament absorbing a troublesome northern neighbour, the British parliament was free to do what it liked with institutions – such as the Scottish law courts and the Kirk – supposedly guaranteed by the terms of the Union of 1707. An English-dominated House of Commons would be at liberty to amend the Articles of Union in any way it saw fit.
On the other hand, if the Union were a Treaty between sovereign powers, the Articles of Union should be regarded as the foundation-stone of the British constitution. Contrary to popular belief, in that case, Britain did possess a written constitution.
However, my investigations revealed an even more surprising dimension to the Scottish Unionist tradition. Unionism, it transpires, has enjoyed as long a continuous history in Scotland as nationalism itself. The nationalism of today's SNP is a modern reformulation of the medieval idea of Scottish nationhood. But the history of Scottish nationalism is far from continuous. Between the defeat of Jacobitism in 1746 and emergence of campaigns for Scottish Home Rule in the late 19th century, the case for Scottish independence was dead. Even in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when a national movement began to form, the leading demand of Scottish nationalists was for a less fettered relationship with England, not for complete independence.
Unionism, on the other hand, has a continuous history which can be traced back to the Scottish philosopher and historian John Mair, who published his History of Greater Britain in 1521. Unionism was not an English idea imposed on Scotland from outside. Nor did unionism emerge in response to either the Union of the Crowns in 1603 or Union of the Parliaments in 1707. Rather, Scottish unionism was a native idea born in Scotland in the century before the Union of the Crowns. Scottish Unionism has an older pedigree within Scotland than either the kilt or Presbyterianism.
If anything, Unionism began as an anti-English idea. In particular, Unionism was touted by Scots as an alternative to the English vision of Britain as an empire. English imperial ambitions had led to two centuries of Anglo-Scottish conflict, but a union between Scotland and England held out the prospect of a peaceful resolution of their differences, to allow the Scottish economy to flourish undisturbed by warfare and Scottish institutions to continue within a loosely united kingdom. Not only was Unionism authentically Scottish, it was but a step away from Scottish nationalism.
For most of modern Scottish history, calls either for the anglicisation of Scotland or Scotland's total independence from England have been marginal. Between the minority extremes of assimilation to England or complete independence, most Scots, whether describing themselves as unionists or as nationalists, have aimed at some form of relationship with England to preserve the institutions of Scottish nationhood.
|
azzuri
|
....could you also forward a copy of it onto Foulkes?!
|
Holebender
|
Re: Unionism "As Scottish as Nationalism" | Colin Kidd wrote: | | But the history of Scottish nationalism is far from continuous. Between the defeat of Jacobitism in 1746 and emergence of campaigns for Scottish Home Rule in the late 19th century, the case for Scottish independence was dead. |
So... the United Scotsmen and the 1820 Radicals Revolt never happened? If I can find such obvious holes on my first reading, I don't think this is a balanced or well researched article.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Colin Kidd wrote: | | But the history of Scottish nationalism is far from continuous. Between the defeat of Jacobitism in 1746 and emergence of campaigns for Scottish Home Rule in the late 19th century, the case for Scottish independence was dead. |
So... the United Scotsmen and the 1820 Radicals Revolt never happened? If I can find such obvious holes on my first reading, I don't think this is a balanced or well researched article. |
Balanced, no. And there are some gaping holes in the research. But I've seen more unbalanced and more poorly researched articles in newspapers. I've even been on the receiving end of more unbalanced and more poorly researched articles in newspapers. And despite the lack of balance and the holes in research, there are a couple of interesting things in what Kidd wrote.
He does have a point about the Scottish philosopher and historian John Mair publishing his "History of Greater Britain" in 1521, forty years before the Reformation in Scotland, more than 80 years before the union of the crowns.
He also has a point about some Unionists of that era seeing a union of two separate kingdoms as being preferable to what looked, to them, like the only other alternative, the one favoured by the likes of Henry the 8th, a complete English swallowing up and incorporation of Scotland.
Now, as it happens, I don't AGREE that was the only other alternative back then. But I can see why some folk thought it was. And I can see why some folk thought a negotiated union, with the continued existence of some Scottish institutions ensured, was preferable to what they thought was the only alternative.
And however much we may denounce that "parcel of rogues", the fact remains, the Treaty which they NEGOTIATED did at least ensure that a Scottish state would continue to exist in some respects (in established religion, educational system, and law). In my view, those important exceptions to Union - religion, education, and the law - ensured that the idea of a Scottish "nation" never became quite as eroded as happened in the case of Wales, for instance. The continued existence of an identifiably Scottish social-political context meant that, when Scottish nationalism did begin to assert itself again, there was a far firmer foundation on which to base this than in the case of Wales.
However, saying that some Unionists had a valid point of view THEN , and did what they considered their best to ensure the continued existence of a Scottish nation in difficult circumstances, doesn't justify the squalid behaviour of many unionists under totally different circumstances NOW , for instance, in that pathetic exercise in total futility, the Calman Commission.
|
William_Cleland
|
Two things he ignores are firstly that for many people in the 17th and 18th centuries and even well into the 19th having a separate Kirk was the only independence that really mattered prior to the full emergence of the modern nation state in the Victorian era and secondly that arguably the SNP ceased to be Nationalist in the mid-80s when they became pro-EEC/EU so only the Free Scotland Party, or whatever Jim Fairlie's fringe party are called, are really in tune with his McDairmid quote nowadays. The EU has opened up new possibilities for the people he describes in his last paragraph.
|
Dave Coull
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | for many people in the 17th and 18th centuries and even well into the 19th having a separate Kirk was the only independence that really mattered |
Yes, although to many people nowadays a separate Kirk may not seem like such a big deal, the fact that there was never a "Church of Britain" was a VERY big deal indeed in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.
Plus which, in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the Kirk not only controlled the education system (such as it was), but was also the WELFARE STATE of those days.
|
Aventinian
|
Re: Unionism "As Scottish as Nationalism" | Holebender wrote: | | Colin Kidd wrote: | | But the history of Scottish nationalism is far from continuous. Between the defeat of Jacobitism in 1746 and emergence of campaigns for Scottish Home Rule in the late 19th century, the case for Scottish independence was dead. |
So... the United Scotsmen and the 1820 Radicals Revolt never happened? If I can find such obvious holes on my first reading, I don't think this is a balanced or well researched article. |
Neither were nationalist, although of course involved some nationalists. Ever read the 1820 Glasgow Proclamation? If it any sort of nationalist, it's British.
|
Holebender
|
Scotland free or a desart.
Very British.
|
Aventinian
|
| Holebender wrote: | Scotland free or a desart.
Very British. |
Perhaps they had a more enlightened definition of freedom than you, perhaps they were nationalists, or perhaps some other reason. Either way, my point stands.
|
Holebender
|
Oh do please tell us what an enlightened definition of freedom might be. I can only think of the dull ordinary definition myself.
Obviously all that liberty pish is far too boring for enlightened thinkers such as yourself.
|
William_Cleland
|
Can't be bothered checking but wasn't the "Scotland Free or a Desert" slogan on a banner made up by a small group from Strathaven or something like that? Point being it was not necessarily the slogan of the whole movement but something somebody did on the spur of the moment. Also is there not some question as to whether the Glasgow proclamation Aventinian talks about was the work of an agent provocateur? That portion of history disappeared into a black hole 1984 style thanks to the powers that be so we really don't know nowadays what was the prime motivation of the participants.
|
Dave Coull
|
Re: Unionism "As Scottish as Nationalism" | Colin Kidd wrote: | | the history of Scottish nationalism is far from continuous. Between the defeat of Jacobitism in 1746 and emergence of campaigns for Scottish Home Rule in the late 19th century, the case for Scottish independence was dead. |
Kidd is exaggerating in suggesting the cause of independence was "dead" for about a hundred and fifty years. One thing he ignores is that, when the French Revolution put all of Europe in a ferment, in Scotland, the supporters of "Liberty" (Rabbie Burns included, at one point, anyway) also supported ending the Union.
Plus, there was the 1820 uprising.
| William_Cleland wrote: | | Can't be bothered checking but wasn't the "Scotland Free or a Desert" slogan on a banner made up by a small group from Strathaven or something like that? |
Yes, it was on the Strathaven banner.
| William_Cleland wrote: | | Point being it was not necessarily the slogan of the whole movement |
It had the widespread support of "the whole movement" in Scotland at that time.
| William_Cleland wrote: | | Also is there not some question as to whether the Glasgow proclamation Aventinian talks about was the work of an agent provocateur? That portion of history disappeared into a black hole |
A certain amount of light can be shed into that black hole by reading "The Scottish Insurrection of 1820" by Peter Berresford Ellis and Seamus Mac A' Ghobhainn. This quote is from page 299 of that book, and is based on considerable evidence provided in the previous 298 pages.
"The Scottish Insurrection of 1820, even though it was induced by agents provocateurs a year or two before the Radicals were really ready, is a highly important piece of Scottish history; in fact, of world labour history. It was not an isolated historical incident, nor were the Scottish Radicals a regional branch of the English Radical movement. The Scottish Radical movement was a logical progression of what had gone before. The Radicals not only reacted against the appalling social conditions but against their country's Union with England, which they considered the main reason for all their ills."
|
William_Cleland
|
Re: Unionism "As Scottish as Nationalism" | Dave Coull wrote: | | It had the widespread support of "the whole movement" in Scotland at that time. |
Your evidence being?
|
Dave Coull
|
Re: Unionism "As Scottish as Nationalism" | William_Cleland wrote: | | Dave Coull wrote: | | It had the widespread support of "the whole movement" in Scotland at that time. |
Your evidence being? |
Look, I agree that, for very long periods of time, the cause of independence for Scotland was, if not exactly dead, then certainly in a state of deep hibernation. And the Radicals of the early Nineteenth Century were a minority. The question is, did independence enjoy wide support amongst that minority? I can't conclusively prove that there was widespread support for Scottish independence amongst the Radical movement in Scotland at that time, and YOU most certainly can't prove the opposite. However, you could gain at least a wee bit of light into what you yourself described as "a black hole" by reading "The Scottish Insurrection of 1820" by Peter Berresford Ellis and Seamus Mac A' Ghobhainn.
"The Scottish Insurrection of 1820, even though it was induced by agents provocateurs a year or two before the Radicals were really ready, is a highly important piece of Scottish history; in fact, of world labour history. It was not an isolated historical incident, nor were the Scottish Radicals a regional branch of the English Radical movement. The Scottish Radical movement was a logical progression of what had gone before. The Radicals not only reacted against the appalling social conditions but against their country's Union with England, which they considered the main reason for all their ills."
Quoted from page 299 of that book, and based on evidence presented in the previous 298 pages, as well as in the considerable appendices that follow.
|
William_Cleland
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon - Napoleon
|
Holebender
|
It seems to me Dave has a well-researched book on the subject and you have your scepticism. Scepticism is good, but you are offering no counter-evidence to back it up. In this case I'm inclined to believe Dave's account.
|
William_Cleland
|
There will no doubt be another historian with another perspective peddling a different fable on this. Most historians are basically propagandists and that applies to Colin Kidd as much as anybody.  I have no strong view either way on this 1820 thing. All I will say is that when I heard about the martytrs of 1820 as part of the oral history handed down to me by my grandmother at a time back in the 70s when it wasn't talked about very much by historians or politicians the struggle of the working class for social justice angle was very much at the forefront and the enemy was the ruling class which was as much as Scottish as it was English.
|
|
|
|