What if ?

Celtic Indian · What if ?

Being a new member I have so far enjoyed browsing the topics,ideas,exchanges and excellent information that is available on here.
One debate I have noticed is how the Union came into being.There are some arguements pertaining to exactly what happened.I don't know what happened as I've not full researched it myself,but there is interesting info debated on another thread,which I am learning a lot from.So,thank you.

I would like to know the memberships views,however,if the Union had happened in 1707.Thats to say that the parliments hadn't had united.Bearing in mind that the Kingdoms were at that time.How would you percive the modern Scotland of today would be like ? Taking into account events like the Napoleonic Wars,World Wars I & II,the industrial revolution etc.

How do you think Scotland and the World would look like today if the Union hadn't taken place when it did ?

Aventinian

I imagine it'd be far worse as a lack of access to the Empire would have made us poor at the vital time when the modern infrastructure of nations was beginning.

I reckon the Union was near enough inevitable.

SLG

I reckon the Union of some form was fairly inevitable as well. I don't think it had to last this long though, or indeed any longer.

Dave Coull

Celtic Indian wants to know what would have happened if the Union had not happened in 1707.

War.

War would have happened.

England would have invaded Scotland. France would have got involved. This would have developed into a wider European war and indeed to some extent a world war.

The so called Seven Years War (which actually lasted 9 years, and was started by Lieutenant George Washington of His Majesty's Virginia Regiment attacking French forts in Ohio) saw fighting in America, Europe, India, Africa, and every ocean of the world. That was in 1754 to 1763. So it's no exaggeration to say that a major war between England and France would have happened earlier, over Scotland.

I would say that the "Jacobite" tendency of "romantic" Scottish Nationalism is particularly estranged from reality. Even if there had been a Stuart restoration (with French help) the conflicts between protestants and catholics, and indeed between different kinds of protestants, were a SCOTTISH thing, not something caused by outsiders, and they would not have gone away, but would have continued to play a major part in subsequent Scottish history.

I think that is a pretty safe prediction. But anybody who claims to predict the outcome of the War of No-Union, and everything that would have happened after that war, is kidding themselves and others.

However, there is one more thing that needs pointing out.

The demand for independence for Scotland is about what happens now . Outrageous though it may seem to Jacobites and other believers in mythology, you don't have to be on "their" side at every step in Scotland's past history to be in favour of independence now. Even folk who think that, on the whole, taking everything into account, the Union of 1707 probably made a kind of sense at the time, can come round to thinking that independence is the best thing for Scotland now.

Dave Coull

I have a historical essay, complete with loads of academic references etc, about the Union of 1707, which I wrote ten years ago. Apparently I can't send it as an attachment to the forum. Is there some other way I could make it available?

Celtic Indian

SLG

Dave Coull

I wrote:

"I have a historical essay, complete with loads of academic references etc, about the Union of 1707,
which I wrote ten years ago. Apparently I can't send it as an attachment to the forum. Is there
some other way I could make it available?"

SLG wonders: "How large is it?"

Seven A4 size pages, Eight pages including the Bibliography.

"Could you not just cut and paste the text?"

I think it is a bit long for sending as a message to the forum. It would probably be better if yourself
or one of the other moderators could place it somewhere on the Our Scotland website so that
folk can access it if they want to read it, but also so that I don't get complaints about an excessively
long message from folk who do NOT want to read it.

I actually lost this essay in the course of moving house a few years ago. But then I remembered
a place there would be a copy of it (at that time - not now), and downloaded it from there.
Unfortunately the document had been re-typed for that site and it contains a couple of mistakes
which weren't in the original, and I found that since, so far as that website was concerned,
I wasn't the "author" (the person who typed it up for that website, somebody called Mona,
was) I couldn't correct these. Nevertheless, it IS my essay. Here is the start of it:

*********************************************************************

“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 recognisable 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.

*******************************************************************

So, how about me sending this to you or one of the other moderators to make available
for those who want to read it?

Aventinian

I believe the correct lyrics are actually 'be the nation again'. It's not some sort of call to nationalist arms.

azzuri

Dave, my advice is just to create a new post containing the full essay. That way people can either choose to read and comment on it, or not.

Listing it as an attachment is not possible.

Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote "I believe the correct lyrics are actually 'be the nation again'."

You could be right. It's not my favourite song, it's not even my favourite "patriotic" song, I admit I may not have listened carefully enough, and, although I did check out other things for that essay, for these words I relied on memory, which can, admittedly, be faulty,

"It's not some sort of call to nationalist arms" - again, you could be right, the song did seem distinctly nationalistic to me, but maybe I got the wrong impression.

In any case, this is all a bit beside the point. The title makes its point whether it is a quote or not. I wrote that essay in 1997, at a time when it did look like we could quite soon have the first Scottish parliament since 1707. The arch-unionist Tam Dalyell was warning that this would prove just a step towards independence. My point was that the question as to whether Scotland should be a nation again, a question which was important in 1987 and has if anything grown in importance since then, was also an important question in the 1700s. They had "devolution" back then, too. They had a Scottish parliament. But, for many people back then, it seemed this "half-way house" was not working, and that the real choice was between EITHER Union OR Independence. The same parliament which voted for the Union had recently voted for measures which asserted Scottish independence. Such as asserting a Scottish right to decide who the monarch should be. Such as asserting a Scottish right to decide whether they wanted to go to war, or make peace, regardless of what London did. Such as asserting a Scottish right to trade with France, even though England was at war with France. As it happens, in the end (or, perhaps more accurately, at one point), they narrowly opted for the Union. But there was no certainty over this. Some of those who voted that way had recently been advocating "being a nation again". And some of them would be advocating this again very soon. "By 1713, the Scottish MPs of all parties determined to make an effort to dissolve the Union. A motion in the House of Lords for dissolution of the Union failed by just four votes". (P.H. Scott, 1707: The Union of Scotland and England in Contemporary Documents with a Commentary. Edinburgh: Chambers, 1979, page 67).

Nowadays, we are used to "Unionist" and "Nationalist" being mutually exclusive categories. In the early 18th Century, they could be adjectives describing the behaviour of the same people at different points in time. But the point is, although they could, and did, swither between one and the other, they recognised that the choice was either Union or Independence. They knew the half-way-house didn't work.

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

I wrote

"Nowadays, we are used to 'Unionist' and 'Nationalist' being mutually exclusive categories"

Agentmancuso says "Some people spend a great deal of time asserting the distinction at every opportunity"

Not me. For me, one of the important distinctions in politics (not the only one) is between supporters and opponents of independence. Which is not quite the same thing as between "Unionist" and "Nationalist". I also recognise that there are a great many "don't knows".

I wrote

"In the early 18th Century, they could be adjectives describing the behaviour of the same people at different points in time. But the point is, although they could, and did, swither between one and the other, they recognised that the choice was either Union or Independence. They knew the half-way-house didn't work."

By which, of course, I meant that they knew, from experience, that "the half-way house" which had existed, off and on, for over a century, by 1707, since the regal union of 1603, hadn't worked.

Agentmancuso says "I'm quite impressed that the soothsayers of the 1700's knew that federalism would be out of the question 300 years later" - in 1987, as a rather ancient student of history, I wrote an essay about the early 18th Century. Not about 21st century politics. There was no mention of "federalism" in the early 18th century, so there was no mention of it in my essay. As for the contemporary-related introduction, the purpose of an introduction is to make the reader want to read more. As it happens, that particular essay was just written for one reader, my tutor at university. But the introduction must have worked, where they were concerned. They gave that essay the highest grade they'd ever given any essay, by any student.

agentmancuso

inga

inga

Aventinian

I'll agree broadly with that. The spirit of the Act of Union was not to create a 'union' or confederation, but to create a new country 'for ever'. To consider the UK in terms of a Union does seem rather archaic to me also.

SLG

inga

SLG

Aventinian

inga

mairead

Indeed Inga, and I say 'bring it on'

SLG

Aventinian

"Well sometimes full division is preferable to no or half division."

I disagree. Nor is any 'division' necessary to advocate devolution.

Anything that makes people think of themselves as part of a greater and equal whole is good by my reckoning.

SLG

Aventinian

Holebender

So do you think all the properties in your neighbourhood should be communally owned, or should each family own its own property while remaining part of the neighbourhood?

An independent Scotland will not detach itself from the British Isles, but I see no reason for the whole shebang to be under a single owner.

SLG

inga

Aventinian

RadgeJougal

inga wrote:
"We can see this in the ghettoisation of literature. Let's say I, an Edinburgher, were to write a novel set in outer space somewhere. Does it go in the sci-fi section of Scottish bookshops? Not a chance. It goes in the "Scottish" section, for I am "a young up-and-coming Scottish talent", and everything I do is sheer gold. "

You can find Ken McLeod in the Science Fiction section of many bookshops, but he had to go through the Scottish section first.

I'm glad there's a Scottish section in many bookshops... otherwise we'd end up with WH Smiths, which are the same everywhere.

Aventinian

Holebender

That's not an answer. You appear to believe in personal individuality but collective homogeneity. I cannot reconcile these two. If we're all the same we cannot have individual identities and vice versa.

Dave Coull

Inga wrote "If everyone in Scotland is offered RestofBritish citizenship, and everyone in RestofBritain is offered Scottish citizenship -- then surely they can vote in eachother's elections and the two populations are ruling eachother as if they were still united."

No. Although all citizens of all EU countries can vote in EU elections, they can only vote for EU parliament candidates in their particular country. In fact, I can only vote for folk who are candidates for the North East Scotland euro-parliamentary seat. This is because there is a residency requirement. When I lived in England, because of my residence there, I could have voted in England. Somebody from England living in Scotland, because of their residence here, has a vote in Scotland. That would presumably continue to be the case after independence. But of course the vast majority of English folk could not vote in Scottish elections, just as the vast majority of Scottish folk could not vote in English elections. Because of the residency requirement.

"I agree that the un-evenness of devolution has created resentment that did not previously exist. This could be straightened out by either seperation, the undoing of devolution, Britain-wide devolution, or some kind of English counterbalance to devolution."

The only practical option is independence.

The "undoing of devolution" is simply not going to happen. Although the abolition of the Scottish Parliament and a return to fully centralised rule from London is still supported by a minority, in practice this is about as likely to happen as another Jacobite rebellion leading to "restoration" of the Stuarts.

"Britain-wide devolution" leading to some sort of quasi-federal system is impossible, because the people of England have shown that they do not want England to be split up into regions, and because the Scots would never accept a situation where Scotland is treated as equivelant to an English region. The English equivelant of Scotland is England.

"Some sort of English counterbalance to devolution" would, in practice, inevitably lead to a specifically English Parliament, which would lead to Scotland and England being separate, independent countries.

"I personally would favour Britain-wide devolution" - it's a fantasy. It isn't going to happen.

"although regional assemblies would require that some politician succeeds in persuading the English that this isn't part of some lefty England-must-die agenda." - regional assemblies in England will never work, not because they are "lefty", but simply because of the sheer impossibility of getting any agreement amongst folk in England on the boundaries of these so-called "regions". Everybody knows where the border between Scotland and England is. And the Pennines make a very clear boundary between Yorkshire and Lancashire. But where would the boundary between the East Midlands and the West Midlands be? Or would there just be a "Midlands" region? Where would the boundary between "Wessex" and "Southern England" be? Would there even be such regions as "Wessex" and "Southern England"? If not, what WOULD there be? Would you have a "West Country" region? Would this include Cornwall? Would a "West Country" region include Wiltshire? Which "region" would Lincolnshire fit in? The North of it is Humberside, the south of it is more like East Anglia. And so on. It's just not going to happen.

inga

inga

Holebender

And once the Parliament in Winchester is up and running and administering England people are going to wonder what Westminster is for and why they should pay for it. An English Parliament would be as powerful as a UK Parliament so why bother with the duplication? In many people's minds Westminster would become an irrelevance (as it already is to many in Scotland) and so would the UK.

Make no mistake, a parliament in Scotland and a parliament in England makes a joint parliament unnecessary and that equates to independence for both countries. And a good thing too.

inga

Holebender

Well, if it ever comes to pass we'll see who's right.

Maybe you'll learn then.

inga

Holebender

It's Plan C (or probably even further down the alphabet) because most people who actually think about it will see that an English Parliament will be the death of the UK. If England is self-governing there is no point in having the UK.

inga

Holebender

You are absolutely right that as long as there is a UK England is not self-governing, but we are discussing the existence of an English Parliament. With a Parliament England would be self-governing (what other purpose would a parliament have?) and in those circumstances, as you have recognised, the UK would cease to exist!

So, you see, an English Parliament would be the end of the UK.

inga

Holebender

The UK will not survive even a partially self-governing England. Any English Parliament is going to have at least as many powers as the Scottish Parliament of the day. It will leave the UK too irrelevant to survive and just about everybody can see that except you, it seems.

SLG

inga

Holebender

Sorry, Inga. The UK is increasingly irrelevant to many (probably most) people in Scotland.

Economist

RadgeJougal

To hell with English devolution. Scotland and Wales need independence, and the regions of England need devolution.

The irony is that London, which needs it least, is devolved...

Dave Coull

Radge Jougal wrote "To hell with English devolution", but in the very next sentence he appears to contradict himself by saying "the regions of England need devolution".

Yes, I know he also says "Scotland needs independence", but the bit I am questioning is the bit where Radge appears to contradicts himself.

Saying "To hell with English devolution" appears to suggest either that Radge is opposed to English devolution, or that he could not care less one way or the other about English devolution.

Whichever of these two meanings is intended, the next sentence contradicts it. Saying "the regions of England need devolution" suggests support for English devolution.

Yes, Scotland needs independence, and, as I pointed out in an earlier post "the Scots would never accept a situation where Scotland is treated as equivelant to an English region. The English equivelant of Scotland is England". For those of us in favour of independence for Scotland, how the people of England decide to organise things in their country is up to them. Having said that, on purely practical grounds, and without taking a position either for or against English devolution, there are good reasons for doubting that any of the schemes put forward so far could happen. As I pointed out in that same earlier post, there is no enthusiasm, in England, for English devolution. Even if it should sound like a good idea in theory, there is "the sheer impossibility of getting any agreement amongst folk in England on the boundaries of these so-called 'regions'. Everybody knows where the border between Scotland and England is. And the Pennines make a very clear boundary between Yorkshire and Lancashire. But where would the boundary between the East Midlands and the West Midlands be? Or would there just be a 'Midlands' region? Where would the boundary between 'Wessex' and 'Southern England' be? Would there even be such regions as 'Wessex' and 'Southern England'? If not, what would there be? Would you have a 'West Country' region? Would this include Cornwall? Would a 'West Country' region include Wiltshire? Which 'region' would Lincolnshire fit in? The North of it is Humberside, the south of it is more like East Anglia. And so on. It's just not going to happen".

Economist