Unhappy Union
JAMES IRVINE-ROBERTSON LOOKS AT THE MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE DEEPLY
UNPOPULAR ACT OF UNION
Constitutionally, the British Isles today is a pig’s breakfast. Ireland is an independent nation, except for the north, which, at the time of writing, is ruled by Westminster. So is England. Wales is mostly governed from London, but some internal decisions can be made at the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff. Scotland runs itself through the parliament in Edinburgh, but certain powers are reserved for Westminster. Scots members at Westminster can vote on internal English matters. English members cannot vote on internal Scottish matters. And then there’s the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands – different again, but there are few folk who are sufficiently interested to know how or why.
So, the Treaty of Union of 1707, often seen as one of the two or three defining moment in Scotland’s history, may not have been quite so earth-moving as would first appear.
This is just as well, because the treaty uniting the parliaments of England and Scotland was the product of expediency, bribery, and self-interest at a time when hostility between the two nations was high. One commentator reckoned that under one per cent of Scots approved of their parliament’s actions.
The crowns of England and Scotland had united in 1603, but the two countries were very different. Scotland had one-sixth of the population of her southern neighbour and one-fortieth of the wealth. Half the Scots lived in the Highlands and spoke Gaelic.
The legal systems were diverging, with Scots law basing itself more on Roman-D.....
To read the rest of this article you can buy this issue
or subscribe to Scotland Magazine to have every issue delivered direct to your door.
By James Irvine Robertson
Section : Scottish History
Page number : 24