OPEN FOR BUSINESS
Trade was a driving force behind the union ‘yes’ voteThe collapse of the Scottish colonial venture at Darien in Central America (with the
loss of many lives and a substantial amounts of money) turned many Scots against
King William and England. With some justification, both were blamed for the
disaster, although there were other, more significant, causes, including Spanish
hostility. A minority argued that only through union with England and access thereby
to England’s colonies would the Scots achieve their ambition of expanding overseas
trade, the “golden ball” sought by most European nations. A union of trade with
England had long been a Scottish aim, although as part of a federal arrangement.
With a navy in 1703 comprising only three armed vessels for protection, Scotland’s
merchant marine was vulnerable to attacks from French privateers – although the
seizure of the Scottish ship Annandale by the English in 1704 further exacerbated
Anglo-Scottish tensions. In 1706, even opposition MPs voted for the fourth Article of
Union, which not only
secured access to the
plantations within the
umbrella of the
Navigation Acts, but also
kept open the important
market for Scottish
goods in England itself.
Scotland’s economy at
the turn of the 18th
century was in dire
straits and had been
sinking from the 1680s.
The balance of payments
was deeply in deficit,
coin was in short supply
and the state machine
was badly under-funded
and near to collapse.GETTY IMAGES/BRIDGEMAN IMAGES
The 1707 Articles of Union from the
House of Lords Records Office, and a
1754 engraving, after an earlier original,
of them being presented to Anne II
n a packed St Paul’s Cathedral on 1
May 1707, William Talbot, Bishop of
Oxford, preached a weighty sermon
on the advantages of unity between
peoples. The occasion was the
inauguration of the Act of Union
that now bound together the nations
of England and Scotland in the United
Kingdom of Great Britain.
For most of those there – as well as the
massed crowds on the streets outside – the
Act had come as a blessed relief. Despite
being bound together by the Union of the
Crowns, during the years preceding 1707,
relations between the two nations had
deteriorated to the extent that armed
conflict was seriously considered. The
Union removed the immediate cause of
inter-national tension: the unwillingness
of the Scots to go along with the English
Act of Settlement of 1701, which had
decreed that Anne’s successor should be
the Protestant Electress of Hanover,
Princess Sophia.
There were Scots who shared in
England’s joy. A few, led by James Douglas,
the Duke of Queensberry, the queen’s
commissioner in Scotland, were in London
at the time, basking in the public’sadulation. But they were in a minority. In
Edinburgh, the mood was sombre. During
the debates in the Scottish parliament
about the union, angry crowds had rioted.
These included Jacobites (supporters of
James Francis, son of James II and VII)
who wanted no truck with a union that
dented their hopes of a Stuart restoration.
The crowds also included nationalists,
protesting furiously against the loss of
Scotland’s ancient sovereignty. Also angry
were staunch Presbyterians; the church on
both sides of the border was Protestant, but
this group felt that Scotland’s Presbyterian
church government (ruled by elders) was
threatened by that of the Anglican Church
of England which was episcopalian (ruled
by bishops).
To counter a rumour that the Scottish
crown, along with the sword and sceptre of
state, were to be taken to England,
government ministers hastily amended
the 24th Article of Union to exclude the
possibility of this happening – ever. Rather
than being received joyously, when the
Articles were finally ratified in Parliament,
the less than full chamber had resounded
to the loud theatrical cry of “No” from the
leader of the country opposition.Evidence of this sort has led Scottish
historians in recent decades to argue that
the Union was pressed on the unwilling
Scots by England and approved by
unprincipled Scottish MPs who betrayed
their countrymen and women in return for
pensions, government posts and promises
of honours. Had this not done the trick,
England would have sent troops into
Scotland and forced the Edinburgh
Parliament’s hand. Extreme exponents
of these explanations for the Union even
deny that the Scots acceded to
incorporation in return for free trade and
access to England’s colonies – denouncing
this argument as a Victorian “invention”.
Such concessions, it is asserted, were
unnecessary, the evidence that Scots
sought such ends thin on the ground.
With the tercentenary of the Union of
1707 approaching, a research project at the
University of Dundee was begun in 2002,
one aim of which was to put to the test
claims that Scottish MPs who supported
the Union were, in the words of Scots poet
Robert Burns later in the century, a “parcel
of rogues”. Derek Patrick, whose University
of St Andrews PhD was on the Glorious
Revolution in Scotland, was employed notA map showing John Speed’s
‘Kingdome of Scotland’ in 1662