main

The Treaty of Union was a valid treaty under international law between two independent sovereign states - Scotland and England - which created an entirely new state, the United Kingdom, something which modern Unionists tend to forget. There is indeed a general assumption - even amongst educated English members of the British parliament - that the Union was a takeover or absorption of Scotland into England, hence the tendency to view the words "Britain" and "England" as interchangeable. Yet such an attitude, though wrong in legal fact, is understandable given that the true purpose of the Union was (and is) to bring Scotland under English control. As the 18th century English author Jonathan Swift noted:

"..it was thought highly dangerous to leave that part of the island inhabited by a poor, fierce northern people, at liberty to put themselves under a different king...and so the union became necessary..."

Unionists like to paint the Union as a historically inescapable and mutually beneficial partnership of equals. The reality of Scotland's condition, both in 1707 and today, is very different. Not only was the Union effectively a bloodless conquest of Scotland by her oldest enemy, to have hugely damaging consequences to Scotland and the Scots in the short and long term, but it was arrived at through some of the most despicable acts of treachery and corruption ever recorded. Even the Unionist historian Hume Brown admits that it was "a period when human nature does not appear at its best". The eminent historian Christopher Hill, however, is more forthright:

How did this terrible catastrophe, the surrender of Scottish independence, occur without even a fight?

In 1567 the son of the deposed Mary Queen of Scots was crowned King James VI. He was to be the last child to sit on the Scottish throne. James grew up to be the notably well-educated monarch of a people who, although poor, were vigorous and pious. He was, however, much impressed by the splendour and deference of the English court and the (episcopalian) English Church. By contrast, the Scottish Kirk was Presbyterian and preferred simpler, unadorned surroundings. Even worse, in James' eyes, was the defiantly democratic spirit of the Scottish people which insisted that sovereignty lay with them, and not the King. One can only imagine the chagrin that a man like James felt when he was forced to borrow a pair of stockings and silverware from his nobles in order to entertain foreign guests!

It should therefore have come as no surprise that when James inherited the English throne on the death of the childless Elizabeth I, trouble was in store for the Scots. This happened on Thursday morning, 24 March, 1603. Early in April, James VI of Scotland and now I of England packed his bags and headed for London. He was, despite extravagant promises to the contrary, to return only once.

The Union of Crowns was a severe blow to Scotland. This nation, which took pride in her contribution to European civilization, was now governed by a London-based monarch for whom English interests inevitably took precedence. Scottish freedom was greatly curtailed, much of her nobility moved to England (which is why so many "Scottish" lairds and nobles of today are English in accent, education and outlook), and the nation's trade was decimated. As Scottish Parliamentarian Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun was to later point out, the Union of Crowns and English imperialism not only destroyed Scottish trading links with places like France, Spain, and the Baltic states, but also:

"Our trade was formerly in so flourishing a condition that the shire of Fife alone had as many ships as now belong to the whole kingdom"

To make it easier to govern his three kingdoms of Scotland, Ireland, and England, James VI attempted to force them into a deeper union. To this end, he tried to make them follow one religion (by bringing the Scottish Church into line with the English, naturally) and promoted the idea of creating a unitary state with one British parliament (in London, naturally). He even commissioned the design of a British flag, which saw the first attempts to harmonise the Scottish St. Andrew's Cross with the English Cross of St. George (most of which relegated the Scottish flag to the corner or background of the English one, naturally). [ It is worth noting here that the terms "British" and "Britain" derive from the medieval English myth that the island now bearing that name was discovered by a Roman named Brutus. This fanciful tale was used as justification by Edward Longshanks for his attempted subjugation of Scotland. How ironic that the artificial construct of "Britishness" should still be used in a not dissimilar manner today! ]

However, the English were unimpressed with the idea of parliamentary union, contemptuous of any plans for closer links with the despised Scots, and so the disastrous attempt to force the Scots to adopt Anglicanism (the version of the Protestant faith most popular in England) was to be his flagship policy. Yet it is worth examining two of James' other notable Unionist endeavours first: the plantation of Ulster, and the brutal "civilizing" of the Highlands - both of which were aimed at the destruction of Gaeldom (the indigenous culture of Scotland and Ireland) and its replacement with English ways now grandly known as "Britishness".

Ireland, which had recently seen the end of thirty-year English military conquest, was to be the home of over 8,000 Scots capable of bearing arms by the end of James' reign. Ulster Catholics and Gaels were forced off their lands, which were handed over to the settlers. Ironically many of these Scottish colonists were themselves the victims of similar forced clearances in Scotland. The Highlands and Islands were treated in a similarly violent manner. In 1609, Highland chiefs were abducted and forced to accept a number of measures - called the Statues of Iona - that were designed to stamp out native manners, dress and customs. Clan chiefs would have to send their eldest children to the mainland to be educated and taught to "speak, read and write English". The Bards were outlawed in a bid to eradicate the oral traditions of Gaeldom. Forged documents were used to justify the clearing of weaker clans off their land, and an English expeditionary force was planned to savage the Isles. Whilst James VI's policies in the Highlands were to prove largely ineffective, they provided a template for the British government to follow with even greater zeal in later years.

As James strove to break the power of the Scottish Kirk, he employed measures just as ruthless as his other pro-Union policies. In 1606, eight leading Scottish Kirk ministers arrived in London at the King's invitation, only to find themselves and their faith insulted before his English courtiers. Their leader, Andrew Melville, was imprisoned in the Tower of London for three years and forbidden from entering Scotland forever. James established bishops in Scotland - a grave heresy to the Kirk - and created ecclessiastical courts to impose the English model on Scotland. Eventually the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was banned in another attempt to introduce reforms to the Scottish way of worship.

Ultimately, James VI failed to bring the Scots to heel and his bitterly resented reforms were not to last. However, his reign in many ways became a first draft for future British policy. Yet if the Scots felt that they had gained little by the James' succession to the English throne and the Union of Crowns, they were to find that future British monarchs would be even worse for Scotland. For all his faults, James truly believed in a perfect Union between his kingdoms. His successors, who were not raised as Scots and had no sympathy with their Scottish subjects, came to view the project of Union as merely a convenient device for imposing English rule on her neighbours.

James was succeeded in 1625 by his son, Charles I, who shared his father's views on matters like religion and the divine right of kings. In fact, he outdid his father in his zeal for these issues and soon plunged his three kingdoms into war, that which historians charmingly refer to as the English Civil War. Oliver Cromwell, champion of Puritanism and the liberties of the English Parliament, eventually defeated Charles' supporters with his New Model Army and the unfortunate king was beheaded by his English subjects. Cromwell defeated the numerically superior Scottish army thanks to the meddling of an increasingly officious Kirk in military matters - one of many great acts of stupidity which Scotland and her Kirk have managed to contrive throughout the ages - and by 1652 the country was firmly under the control of the English army and parliament. Thirty Scots were sent to represent the nation in Westminster, and a whole new judicial infrastructure was created to see to the efficient running of the country. To pay for the unwelcome new government Scots were heavily taxed - a foretaste of the later Union that was to come.

By 1660, Cromwell was dead and Charles II was restored to the thrones of Scotland and England. The British Republic was at an end, and the Scottish independence was restored - as much as that was possible under a English-based monarch who was intent on anglicising Scotland as his forebears had done. He almost never set foot in Scotland, and his 25-year reign was marked by a frenzy of revenge and killing in his northern kingdom. Scots fought amongst themselves over religion while the forces of Union strove to turn this nation into part of England's Protestant Empire. Charles died in 1685 and was suceeded by his brother, James VII, whose Catholic enthusiams led to him being forced to flee to France in 1689. The Dutchman, William of Orange, was invited to become King William II of Scotland and III of England. He gracefully accepted, and presbyterianism was restored to Scotland. Now that some sort of religious settlement had been reached in Scotland, the preoccupation of the ruling classes was to switch to trade and financial matters.

Despite the two countries being under the same monarch, the English Navigation Acts excluded Scots from trading with English overseas colonies. The Scots responded by drawing up an ambitious plan to establish overseas colonies of their own - colonies which would be a source of raw materials, a market for Scottish produce and a base for her ocean-going traders (in contrast with the imperial designs behind the English colonies, the Scots were interested in trade, not conquest). So the Scottish Parliament formed "The Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies". However, such a venture required large sums of money to procure a fleet and the cargoes necessary to build a colony. Scotland was a poor nation in which cash transactions were still relatively uncommon - land, livestock (and, in the Highlands, clansmen) were seen as more important than currency. Foreign investment was required, and was readily forthcoming from English and Dutch merchants who saw great commercial opportunity in the Company of Scotland.

The English East India Company soon saw the threat of a Scottish rival and insisted to King William that the Scottish enterprise should be sabotaged. William, a hunchbacked Dutch homosexual who spoke little English and cared even less for the Scots, agreed to all he could to damage the efforts of his Scottish subjects. English merchants were banned from investing in the Company of Scotland, and English diplomatic pressure soon ensured that investment from Holland and Hamburg was withdrawn. A letter was sent to all English colonial Governors forbidding them to assist the Scottish colony. Most extraordinarily of all, the English informed their continental enemy, Spain, that they would not defend Scotland's colony - effectively an open invitation to attack Scottish settlers.

The Company of Scotland was on the verge of collapse. But national pride was now at stake, and many Scots of humble means supported the Company as a defiant gesture of patriotism. Many clubbed together in order that their funds would stretch to the purchase of just one share between them, whilst the nobles invested thousands of pounds from their fortunes. Within a day of appealing for investment from the country at large, (on 27th February 1698) £80,000 (pounds Scots) had been raised - soon the required £400,000 was subscribed - representing half the total money in circulation in Scotland.

The site selected for the colony was on the Isthmus of Panama, at Darien, where North and South America meet. [There was even a plan to build a great canal - later undertaken by the Americans as the Panama Canal] It seemed strange to the Scots that no-one was there already, despite the fact that Spain controlled the surrounding area. They were soon to find out why. In July 1698 seven ships sailed from Leith, their cargoes demonstrating the naivety and inexperience of the Company's directors. They included heavy textiles, canvas, linen, homespun cloth and blankets, shoes, wigs, Kilmarnock bonnets, oatmeal, 29 barrels of clay pipes and hundreds of Protestant Bibles written in Scots. When the fleet arrived it established a base called Fort St Andrew and proclaimed the new colony of New Caledonia. Soon fever struck the colonists in the oppressively humid climate of the mosquito-infested Darien jungle. The natives proved unfriendly, and the Spanish in nearby Venezuela and Mexico prepared to march against them. The Scots, however, hung on doggedly, and sent pleas to the English governor of Jamaica, as a fellow subject of King William, to assist them against the approaching Spaniards. They were given no help whatsoever. Eventually the Scots surrendered to the Spanish force whose commander, impressed by the bravery of Campbell of Fonab and his Scottish garrison, allowed the starved survivors to march out with honour.

The Darien project had been a total disaster for Scotland and, whilst the mismanagement of the Company of Scotland and the unsuitability of the chosen site had as much to do with its failure as English depredations, the political consequence was that England was blamed entirely for an act of major economic sabotage against a sovereign neighbour. An Edinburgh mob smashed the windows of those who had opposed the project, and burned down the house of Lord Seafield, a prominent opponent of the scheme. To the governing classes, the status quo was now intolerable. Scotland must have full independence or a renegotiated relationship with England.

William's death in March 1702 brought a more determined Unionist to the thrones of Scotland and England. Anne had spent only a few months in Scotland in 1681 as a girl of sixteen and had little knowledge or sympathy for her Scottish subjects - a "strange" and "unreasonable" people - assuring the English parliament that:

Queen Anne saw the Union as a means to ensure that the Jacobites could never regain the Scottish throne - and would therefore never again threaten her or her Hanoverian successors in England. The English parliament was originally unsympathetic to the idea, but England's Whig party soon converted to the idea of Union as a means of gaining temporary ascendancy over their parliamentary rivals, the Tories. The English government therefore determined to use any means possible to bring the stubbornly independent Scots to heel. Bribery and intimidation featured heavily in their plans. The Tories were vociferously opposed to Union, Sir Edward Seymour summing up the English view of Scotland:

Greatly influenced by the patriotic and forward-thinking Andrew Fletcher, the Scottish Parliament from 1703-04 determinedly championed Scottish freedom. The Act of Security asserted that, should Anne die without an heir, it would be the Scottish Parliament which would choose the successor to the Scottish throne, contradicting the English view that they should choose Scotland's rulers. The Act Anent Peace and War was a response the fact that, under the shared monarch, Scots had been forced to go to war several times in support of English aggression - which greatly damaged Scottish continental trade. When peace settlements were drawn up, the Scots were invariably forgotten by their English "allies". This Act was intended to serve notice that Scotland could no longer be taken for granted by her warmongering neighbour.

The English were furious at Scotland's display of independence, and in 1705 drew up the Aliens Act - essentially an 18th century equivalent of one of those Mafia offers which are so dangerous to refuse. The first part of the Act provided for the setting up of a commission "to treat and consult with Scottish commissioners concerning the union of the two kingdoms". The second part outlined the sanctions that were to be imposed on Scotland should they fail to capitulate to English demands. Unless by Christmas Day 1705 the crown of Scotland had been settled in the same way as the crown of England (i.e. the Scots Parliament must effectively hand over permanent control of the Scottish thone to the English), all Scots in England would be treated as aliens and incapable of inheriting property. Also from that date no cattle sheep, coal or linen (Scotland's main exports) would be imported into England. 24 warships were fitted out to prevent the Scots from trading with France - England would stoop even to piracy in order to control the Scots.

Cleverly, the English had targetted the most influencial class in the Scottish Parliament - the nobles - to bear the brunt of their sanctions. As in the time of Edward Longshanks, most Scottish nobles cared more for their lands and their wealth than their country. In 1705, Queen Anne appointed the Unionist Argyll as her Lord High Commissioner in Scotland. Through bribery, Argyll built up a majority in the Scottish Parliament in favour of Union. On September 1st 1705, the Duke of Hamilton, leader of the anti-Union Country Party, stood up in the House to move that the nomination of Scotland's commissioners should be left to the Queen herself. His motion was passed by four votes. This was a breathtaking act of betrayal, even by the standards of the age, and it paved the way for the destruction of the Scottish state. This moment, as Lockhart of Carnwath put it, was:

Why did Hamilton betray the party he led at this most decisive moment? The answer is simple - bribery. After the Union honours were heaped on him: an English Dukedom, the Orders of the Thistle and Garter and the appointment as ambassador to Paris. Yet astonishingly, Hamilton kept up the pretence of being the noble Scottish patriot until his death in a duel in 1712. Bribery played a key role in the negotiations for Union. Treasury accounts show that in 1703 alone, Queen Anne's Lord High Commissioner in Scotland spent £42,144 on "secret services" - it is not difficult to guess what that meant. Argyll let it be known that he would not attend votes on the Articles of Union unless he was given an English Dukedom and made a general. He also wanted a peerage for his younger brother Archie. Archie became Earl of Islay and Argyll became a Major General and the Duke of Greenwich.

The Earl of Glasgow was instructed by Queensbury about the distribution of the Union bribes: "I being enjoined to carry on this matter with the greatest secrecy and privacy, for if it had ever been in the least discovered during the whole session of the Union parliament, the Union had certainly broken, and I had been infallibly 'De Witted', our mob and generality of Scotland being so incensed against the Union". (Jan De Witt was a 17th century Dutch statesman who was torn to pieces by an angry mob). Another letter from the Earl of Glasgow to the Earl of Oxford explains that the money had not appeared officially in government accounts "for if it had been known that there had been a farthing sent from England to Scotland it would totally have disappointed the carrying of the Union".

Here is how the £20,000 which was spent in bribes at the time of the Union Parliament was disbursed:

NAME	Amount of Bribe £
Duke of Montrose	200
Duke of Atholl	1000
Duke of Roxburgh	500
Marquis of Tweedale	1000
Earl of Marchmont	1104
Earl of Cromarty	300
Earl of Balcarres	500
Earl of Dunmore	200
Earl of Eglinton	200
Earl of Forfar	100
Earl of Glen Cairn	100
Earl of Kintore	200
Earl of Findlater	100
Earl of Seafield	490
Lord Prestonhall	200
Lord Ormiston	200
Lord Anstruther	300
Lord Fraser	100
Lord Polwarth	50
Lord Forbes	50
Lord Elibank	50
Lord Banff	11 !!!!
Provost of Ayr	100

As Lockhart said: "It is abundantly disgraceful to be any manner of way a contributor to the misery and ruin of one's native country; but for persons of quality and distinction, to sell, and even at so mean a price, themselves and their posterity, is scandalous and infamous, that such persons must be contemptible in the sight of those who bought them, and their memories odious to all future generations". Or, as Burns more bluntly put it:

The negotiations of the Articles of Union were oddly contrived, more like a modern industrial dispute than the supposedly glorious birth of the allegedly Great British state. The two sets of commissioners sat in London in seperate rooms and communicated with each other only by writing. In fact, to apply the term "negotiation" to such a process is misleading. At the start of each day the English delegation placed their latest demand before the Scots and then went about their business, to leave the hand-picked group of Union-friendly Scots wrangling fruitlessly amongst themselves. When, in 1939, Hitler breezily informed the Czechoslovakian President that he must sign an invitation to the German Wehrmacht to occupy his country or face invasion, he could have been taking lessons from the style of diplomacy used by the English in the Union negotiations. The Scots were well aware that the English had sent an army to Newcastle under General Wade, and how that army would be deployed if they failed to agree to the demands of their soon-to-be "partners in Union".

Within three months a complete set of twenty-five Articles of Union were agreed, and the English parliament promptly passed them with neither opposition or any great interest. In the Scots Parliament, despite the fact that so many had been bribed in favour of Union, there was prolonged debate. Patriots like Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun made impassioned speeches on the need for Scotland to retain her freedom and the perils of Union, much of which still rings true three hundred years later. But the matter had already been decided and it was only a matter of time before Scotland's Parliament came to the final vote: to accept or reject the Treaty of Union as a whole. On 16th January, 1707, the Treaty was carried by 110 votes to 69 - a clear majority. However, while the lairds and burgesses - the closest thing Scotland had to democratic representatives at that time - were fairly evenly divided on the matter, it was the bribed lords who provided the convincing majority.

The effects of the Treaty of Union, when gleefully ratified by Queen Anne on March 6th 1707, were that the two kingdoms theoretically became one United Kingdom. The reality is that the English saw this as a political conquest of an ancient enemy they had failed to subdue by force of arms, and this perception is entirely justified. Scotland lost her Parliament and now sent 45 members to the Westminster Parliament, where they found themselves in a permanent minority against 513 English MP's - a situation which continues to this day (although the arithmetic is now slightly altered). [It is interesting to note that the English not only had more MP's than the Scots, but greatly more MP's per head of population. In 1707, England had a population five times that of Scotland, but over ten times as many MP's. Even Cornwall had 44 members.] As Andrew Fletcher wrote:

"The 45 Scots members may dance around to all eternity in this trap of their own making"

The Union was bitterly opposed by the overwhelming majority of ordinary Scots. Whilst the English celebrated the humiliation of their Scottish enemies, crowds were rioting throughout Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dumfries, and many other parts of Scotland. By December of 1707, the British Parliament - then as now nothing more than an English parliament with a handful of Scots flunkies - had already broken the provisions of the Treaty of Union, and has continued doing so for three centuries. When Scots MP's complained at the illegal actions of the London Parliament they were met with jeering replies such as:

"Have we not bought Scotland, and the right to tax her?" and "We have catcht Scotland and will hold her fast"

Little wonder that one of the most important architects of Union, Lord Seafield, later repented for his treachery and in 1713 moved a Bill in the House of Lords for the dissolution of the Union. It failed by only four votes.

Scotland's Saltire becomes a mere background for the new, imperial form of the English flag

One of the boasted advantages of Union has always been the claim that it benefits Scottish trade. Yet the Scots were to find that such promised benefits were illusory, especially as they were forced to pay a greatly increased burden of taxation. Some Scots, especially those who were willing to move to London, benefitted greatly whilst the majority suffered in the thirty-year decline the economy entered into after 1707. Prophetically, Andrew Fletcher predicted that wealth would be attracted to London, that trade regulations would be designed to suit English interests and not Scottish. This is the situation of Scotland today, where, despite the fact that Scotland would be the sixth or seventh richest nation on earth with independence (according to the European Union's Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), our economy lags behind those of comparably sized independent nations such as Norway, Ireland, and Austria. Radical nationalists once rallied to the slogan "Scotland free, or a desert!". Today most of lowland Scotland has become an industrial desert at the hands of British economic policy.

Culturally and socially, the Union has been an unmitigated disaster for Scotland. The British government and its Scottish puppets have used every opportunity to attack all that underpins Scotland's nationhood, determined to transform the country into a region of England. The Union made it possible for Butcher Cumberland and his imitators to rape Highland society and the Gaelic foundations of Scottish identity. For much of the Union's existence, the ultimate ambition for many Scots was to serve as cannon fodder and middle managers in England's Empire, which suited the British State perfectly as it siphoned off potential Scottish leaders. The genocide and ethnic cleansing which took place in the Scottish Highlands and Islands after the Jacobite risings in 1745 provided a template not just for British policy in the colonies, but for imperialists everywhere. Scots Gaels were not merely killed or forced off their lands, but their culture, languages and identities continue to be mocked, suppressed and openly attacked by their conquerors to this day. Within living memory, Scots children were beaten by their Schoolteachers for speaking Gaelic in the playground. Today it is all to easy for Scots to pass through primary, secondary, and university education without learning a scrap of their own history, languages and arts. Attacks on Scottish culture are assaults on the Scottish nation herself.

Somehow, by the grace of God, Scotland has managed to survive nearly 300 years of Union - just. Her new "Parliament" may, for now, be little more than the Parish Council Tony Blair once said it would be, but it is entirely conceivable that it will give Scots the confidence to regain our independence and make the assembly in Edinburgh once more a sovereign Parliament for a sovereign people. Greater reversals of fortune have taken place in our history. The question is: do the Scottish people have the guts to go for independence, to demand equality with England and every other nation on earth? Or has the Union emasculated the nation completely?

A Parcel o' Rogues - The Treaty of Union