Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 845

I've just been reading "Cromwell Against the Scots: the last Anglo-Scottish War, 1650-1652", by John D. Grainger. I found this a very readable book, with loads of interesting new stuff of which I was previously unaware. However, I totally disagree with the conclusion which Grainger draws.

In his introduction, Grainger explains the reason for that title, "the LAST Anglo-Scottish War". It was the last inter-national war fought between these two countries, Scotland and England, as two independent states. None of the Jacobite rebellions came into this category. At the Battle of Culloden, there were Scots on both sides, there were Gaelic-speaking highlanders on both sides, there were Englishmen on both sides, but a majority of the troops on both sides were Scottish.

Grainger says that when he started to do research for his book he was shocked to find that there were no books about that war. None at all. Of course there were books which dealt with it, but as an aside to "the English Civil War" or some other related topic. There were simply no books at all just about the last Anglo-Scottish War. Now, Grainger's book was published over ten years ago, so it's possible somebody else may have written about it since then. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Grainger shows that it was indeed a war between two countries. Although Cromwell issued appeals for Scots to see that he was doing the Lord's work and side with him, he had very little success in this. And although a few royalist Englishmen were on the Scottish side, they were viewed with suspicion by the Scots. Both countries had revolutionary governments which had come to power in unorthodox ways, and at one time they had been allies. But the Kirk party in power in Scotland had extracted (false) promises from Charles the Second that he would keep to their Covenant, and Charles landed on Scottish soil at Garmouth, at the mouth of the Spey, on the Moray Firth.

On the same day as Charles's landing, Cromwell was attending a government meeting in London. General Fairfax protested "we are bound with them" (the Scots) "in a solemn league and covenant. For us now to enter their country with an army and make war on them is what I cannot see the justice of". Cromwell replied that the Scots had a few years earlier entered England with an army. Fairfax said that Scottish government, the "engagers", had been overthrown, and replaced by the Kirk party, which disowned the earlier expedition. Cromwell said they are backing Charles the Second, so war is inevitable. Fairfax said in that case, wait until the Scots attack England, and then it is justified to make war on them. At the end of the meeting, Fairfax resigned as commander-in-chief of the army, rather than invade Scotland, and was replaced by Cromwell, who had no such scruples.

What I had not realised, until I read the book, was the sheer scale of that war. Although the Kirk party which controlled the Scottish government was a minority regime, Cromwell's English army was resisted by lowlands and by Gaelic-speaking highlanders, by royalists and by republicans, by professional soldiers and by ordinary folk. Even after Edinburgh had fallen, Stirling continued to defy Cromwell for a year. Cromwell's attack on Fife, using an armada of flat-bottomed boats to cross the Forth, was a major sea-borne invasion. An indication of the sheer scale of the war is that, during the years 1650 to 1652, Scotland lost a higher proportion of its male population than any European country lost in either the First World War or the Second World War. Grainger is right, compared with THAT, the Jacobite rebellions were mere sideshows.

However, where Grainger is wrong is in his political conclusions. He is firmly unionist in his views. At least he was in 1997, I suppose it's just possible he might have modified his views slightly since then.

Grainger says "independence for Scotland means inevitable conflict with England. The actual grounds for argument do not much matter, though it takes no time at all to conjure them up: the status of Berwick-on-Tweed or of the Northern Isles, or the ownership of the North Sea oilfields, will do for a start."

That was written in 1997. I am extremely suspicious of recent media hot air (started by a Lib-Dem Member of Parliament) about Berwick. It looks to me like an attempt to invent a quarrel out of thin air, and I suspect British "intelligence" may be involved. But as for the Northern Isles, support for the Scottish Parliament, and for independence, has grown in the Northern Isles since 1997, so that looks like less of an excuse than it did then. As for the oilfields, well of course oil can cause wars, we have all seen that, but there is a European and an international dimension to consider, so I don't think there is anything inevitable about this.

Grainger concludes "This is the real significance of the last war between England and Scotland. For it is only the last war until now. If the countries separate, there will be another."

While it would be foolish to say that such a thing is impossible, it is even more foolish for Grainger to claim that it is inevitable.

Morph · Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:39 am Post subject:

was it worth the read though Dave? I do agee that their are not a lot of books in this area, so it would be good to get a copy of this one for my own reading
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 845

Morph asked "was it worth the read though Dave?"

Well I did say "I found this a very readable book, with loads of interesting new stuff of which I was previously unaware". So the answer is yes, even though "I totally disagree with the conclusion which Grainger draws".