Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

Acts of Union 1707

Acts of Parliament creating the Kingdom of Great Britain From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Acts of Union 1707
Remove ads
Not to be confused with Union of the Crowns.
"Union of England and Scotland" redirects here; not to be confused with Union of England and Scotland Act 1603 or Treaty of Union.
For other uses, see Act of Union (disambiguation).

The Acts of Union[e] refer to two acts of Parliament, one by the Parliament of Scotland in March 1707, followed shortly thereafter by an equivalent act of the Parliament of England. They put into effect the international Treaty of Union agreed on 22 July 1706, which politically joined the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland into a single "political state" named Great Britain, with Queen Anne as its sovereign. The English and Scottish acts of ratification took effect on 1 May 1707, creating the new kingdom, with its parliament based in the Palace of Westminster.

Quick Facts Long title, Citation ...
Quick Facts Long title, Citation ...

The two countries had shared a monarch since the "personal" Union of the Crowns in 1603, when James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from his cousin Elizabeth I to become (in addition) 'James I of England', styled James VI and I. Attempts had been made to try to unite the two separate countries, in 1606, 1667, and in 1689 (following the 1688 Dutch invasion of England, and subsequent deposition of James II of England by his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange), but it was not until the early 18th century that both nations via separate groups of English and Scots Royal Commissioners and their respective political establishments, came to support the idea of an international "Treaty of political, monetary and trade Union", albeit for different reasons.

Remove ads

Political background

Summarize
Perspective

Prior to 1603, England and Scotland had different monarchs, but when Elizabeth I died without children, she was succeeded as King of England by her distant relative, James VI of Scotland. After her death, the two Crowns were held in personal union by James (reigning as James VI and I), who announced his intention to unite the two realms.[2]

The 1603 Union of England and Scotland Act established a joint Commission to agree terms, but the Parliament of England was concerned this would lead to an absolutist structure similar to that of Scotland. James was forced to withdraw his proposals, but used the royal prerogative to take the title "King of Great Britain".[3][4]

Attempts to revive the project of union in 1610 were met with hostility.[5] English opponents such as Sir Edwin Sandys argued that changing the name of England "were as yf [sic] to make a conquest of our name, which was more than ever the Dane or Norman could do".[6] Instead, James set about creating a unified Church of Scotland and England, as the first step towards a centralised, Unionist state.[7]

However, despite both being nominally Episcopal in structure, the two were very different in doctrine; the Church of Scotland, or kirk, was Calvinist in doctrine, and viewed many Church of England practices as little better than Catholicism.[8] As a result, attempts to impose religious policy by James and his son Charles I ultimately led to the 1639–1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms. The 1639–1640 Bishops' Wars confirmed the primacy of the Scots kirk, and established a Covenanter government in Scotland. The Scots remained neutral when the First English Civil War began in 1642, before becoming concerned at the impact on Scotland of an English Royalist victory.[9] Presbyterian leaders like Argyll viewed union as a way to ensure free trade between England and Scotland, and preserve a Scots Presbyterian kirk.[10]

Under the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant, the Scots Parliament agreed to provide military support to its English counterpart in return for a united Presbyterian church, but did not explicitly commit to political union. As the war progressed, Scots and English Presbyterians increasingly viewed the English Independents, and associated radical groups like the Levellers, as a bigger threat than the Royalists. Both Royalists and Presbyterians agreed monarchy was divinely ordered, but disagreed on the nature and extent of Royal authority over the church. When Charles I surrendered in 1646, an English pro-Royalist faction known as the Engagers allied with their former enemies to restore him to the English throne.[11]

Thumb
Cromwell at Dunbar by Andrew Carrick Gow. Scotland was incorporated into the Commonwealth after defeat in the 1650–1652 Anglo-Scots War.

After defeat in the 1647–1648 Second English Civil War, Scotland was occupied by English troops, which were withdrawn once those whom Cromwell held responsible had been replaced by the Kirk Party. In December 1648, Pride's Purge paved the way for the Trial of Charles I in England by excluding MPs who opposed it. Following the execution of Charles I in January 1649, and establishment of the Commonwealth of England, the Scots Kirk Party proclaimed Charles II King of Scots and England and, in the 1650 Treaty of Breda, resolved to restore him to the English throne. Instead, defeat in the Anglo-Scottish War resulted in Scotland's incorporation into the Commonwealth in 1653, largely driven by Cromwell's determination to break the power of the Scots kirk.[12] The 1652 Tender of Union was followed on 12 April 1654 by An Ordinance by the Protector for the Union of England and Scotland, creating the Commonwealth of England and Scotland.[13] It was ratified by the Second Protectorate Parliament on 26 June 1657, creating a single Parliament in Westminster, with 30 representatives each from Scotland and Ireland added to the existing English members.[14]

1660–1707

While integration into the Commonwealth established free trade between Scotland and England, the economic benefits were diminished by the costs of military occupation.[15] Both Scotland and England associated union with heavy taxes and military rule; it had little popular support in either Country, and the union was dissolved after the Restoration of Charles II in 1660.

The Scottish economy was badly damaged by the (protectionist) English Navigation Acts of 1660 and 1663 and England's wars with the Dutch Republic, Scotland's major export market. An Anglo-Scots Trade Commission was set up in January 1668 but the English had no interest in making concessions, as the Scots had little to offer in return. In 1669, Charles II revived talks on "political union"; his motives may have been to weaken Scotland's commercial and political links with the Dutch, still seen as an enemy and complete the work of his grandfather James I and VI.[16] On the Scottish side, the proposed union received parliamentary support, boosted by the desire to ensure free trade. Continued opposition meant these negotiations were abandoned by the end of 1669.[17][18]

Following the 1688 invasion of England by a Dutch fleet and army led by Prince William of Orange and his wife Mary (daughter of James II), and their deposition of James II as King of England, a Scottish Convention of the Estates (a sister body to the Parliament of Scotland) met in Edinburgh in April 1689 to agree a new Constitutional settlement for Scotland. The Convention of the Estates issued an address to William and Mary "as both kingdomes are united in one head and soveraigne so they may become one body pollitick, one nation to be represented in one parliament", reserving "our church government, as it shall be established at the tyme of the union".[19] William and Mary were supportive of the idea but it was opposed both by the Presbyterian majority in Scotland and the English Parliament.[20] Episcopacy in Scotland was abolished in 1690, alienating a significant part of the political class; it was this element that later formed the bedrock of opposition to Union.[21]

The 1690s were a time of economic hardship in Europe as a whole and Scotland in particular, a period now known as the Seven ill years which led to strained relations with England.[22] In 1698, the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies received a charter to raise capital through public subscription.[23] The Company invested in the Darién scheme, an ambitious plan funded almost entirely by Scottish investors to build a colony on the Isthmus of Panama for trade with East Asia.[24] The scheme was a disaster; the losses of over £150,000[f] severely impacted the Scottish commercial system.[26]

Remove ads

Political motivations

Summarize
Perspective

The International Treaty, and English and Scots acts of ratification of Union may be seen within a wider European context of increasing state centralisation during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, including the monarchies of France, Sweden, Denmark-Norway and Spain. While there were exceptions, such as the Dutch Republic or the Republic of Venice, the trend was clear.[27]

The dangers of the monarch using one parliament against the other first became apparent in 1647 and 1651. It resurfaced during the 1679 to 1681 Exclusion Crisis, caused by English resistance to the Catholic James II (of England, VII of Scots) succeeding his brother Charles II. James was sent to Edinburgh in 1681 as Lord High Commissioner; in August, the Parliament of Scotland passed the Succession Act, confirming the divine right of kings, the rights of the natural heir "regardless of religion", the duty of all to swear allegiance to that king, and the Independence of the Scots Crown. It then went beyond ensuring James's succession to the Scots throne by explicitly stating the aim was to make his exclusion from the English throne impossible without "the fatall and dreadfull consequences of a civil war".[28]

The issue reappeared during the 1688 Dutch invasion and coup d'etat (subsequently entitled as "the Glorious Revolution"). The English Convention Parliament generally supported replacing King James II with his Protestant daughter Mary, holding to their "legal fiction" that James, by fleeing to France, had abandoned his English subjects and "abdicated". They resisted, however, making her Dutch husband William of Orange joint ruler. They gave way "fearing the return of James" only when William threatened to take his troops and fleet and return to the Netherlands, and Mary refused to rule without him.[29]

In Scotland, it became a Constitutional issue. The fact that James VII of Scots had not been present in the Scotland meant that the question of abdication need not arise. On 4 April 1689 a Convention of the Three Estates of Scotland (sister body to the Parliament of Scotland) declared that James VII "had acted irregularly" by assuming regal power (government) "without ever taking the Coronation Oath required by Scots Law". Thus, he had "FOREFALTED [forfeited] the Right to the Scots Crown, and the Scots Throne is become vacant". This was a fundamental difference; if the Parliament of Scotland could decide James VII had "Forfaulted" his Scots throne by actions having, in the words of the "Claim of Right" act 1689 "Invaded the fundamentall Constitution of the Kingdome and altered it from a legall limited monarchy To ane arbitrary despotick power". "Scots monarchs derived legitimacy from the Convention of the Estates", later declared a Parliament of Scotland, not God,[citation needed] thus ending the principle of divine right of kings.[citation needed]

Enshrined in the Union with England Act 1707:

The haill other acts of parliament relating thereto in prosecution of the Declaration of the Estates of this kingdom containing the "Claim of Right" bearing date the eleventh of aprile one thousand six hundred and eighty nine.

Conflict over control of the kirk between Presbyterians and Episcopalians and William's position as a fellow Calvinist put him in a much stronger position. He originally insisted on retaining Episcopacy, and the Committee of the Articles, an unelected body that controlled what legislation Parliament could debate. Both would have given the Crown far greater control than in England but he withdrew his demands due to the 1689–1692 Jacobite Rising.[30]

William's attempts to have the Claim of Right amended were directed through the "Court faction" which began arguing from 1699 onwards that:

  1. The Convention of the Estates was not a parliament so the act did not really count as binding and
  2. the Convention of the Estates was a parliament and so parliament could just rewrite it.

A year and a half after William's death, the Parliament of Scotland "put a period on the end of that sentence" by passing an act which recognised the standing of the Convention of the Estates as a parliament in its own right and made it "high treason" to impugn its authority or to so much as suggest attempting to alter the Claim of Right.

Here is the Claim of Right understood and upheld for its secular constitutional provisions quite as much as for its religious provisions.

Our sovereign lady, with advice and consent of the estates of parliament, ratites, approves and perpetually confirms the first act of King William and Queen Mary's parliament, dated 5 June 1689, entitled act declaring the meeting of the estates to be a parliament, and of new enacts and declares that the three estates then met together the said 5 June 1689, consisting of noblemen, barons and burghs, were a lawful and free parliament, and it is declared that it shall be "high treason" for any person to disown, quarrel or impugn the dignity and authority of the said Parliament. And further, the queen's majesty, with consent foresaid, statutes and declares that it shall be 'high treason' in any of the subjects of this kingdom to quarrel, impugn or endeavour by writing, malicious and advised speaking, or other open act or deed, to alter or innovate the Claim of Right or any article thereof.

English perspective

Thumb
Queen Anne in 1702

The English succession was provided for by the English Act of Settlement 1701, which ensured that the monarch of England would be a Protestant member of the House of Hanover. Until the union of parliaments, the Scottish throne might be inherited by a different successor after Queen Anne, who had said in her first speech to the English parliament that a union was "very necessary".[31] The Scottish Act of Security 1704, however, was passed after the English parliament, without consultation with Scotland, had designated Electoress Sophia of Hanover (granddaughter of James I and VI) as Anne's successor, if Anne died childless. The Act of Security granted the Parliament of Scotland, the three Estates,[31] the right to choose a successor and explicitly required a choice different from the English monarch unless the English were to grant free trade and navigation. Then the Alien Act 1705 was passed in the English parliament, designating Scots in England as "foreign nationals" and blocking about half of all Scottish trade by boycotting exports to England or its colonies, unless Scotland came back to negotiate a Union.[31] To encourage a union, "honours, appointments, pensions and even arrears of pay and other expenses were distributed to clinch support from Scottish peers and MPs".[32]

Scottish perspective

The Scottish economy was severely impacted by privateers during the 1688–1697 Nine Years' War and the 1701 War of the Spanish Succession, with the Royal Navy focusing on protecting English ships. This compounded the economic pressure caused by the Darien scheme, and the seven ill years of the 1690s, when 5–15% of the population died of starvation.[33] The Scottish Parliament was promised financial assistance, protection for its maritime trade, and an end to economic restrictions on trade with England.[34]

The votes of the Court party, influenced by Queen Anne's favourite, James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, combined with the majority of the Squadrone Volante, were sufficient to ensure passage of the treaty.[31] Article 15 granted £398,085 and ten shillings sterling to Scotland,[g] a sum known as The Equivalent, to offset future liability towards the English national debt, which at the time was £18 million,[h] but as Scotland had no national debt,[31] most of the sum was used to compensate the investors in the Darien scheme, with 58.6% of the fund allocated to its shareholders and creditors.[35][page needed]

Thumb
18th-century French illustration of an opening of the Scottish Parliament

The role played by bribery has long been debated. £20,000 was distributed by David Boyle, 1st Earl of Glasgow,[i] of which 60% went to the Duke of Queensberry, the Queen's Commissioner in Parliament. Another negotiator, John Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll was given an English dukedom.[31]

Robert Burns is commonly quoted in support of the argument of corruption: "We're bought and sold for English Gold, Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation." As historian Christopher Whatley points out, this was actually a 17th-century Scots folk song; but he agrees money was paid, though suggests the economic benefits were supported by most Scots MPs, with the promises made for benefits to peers and MPs,[32] even if it was reluctantly.[36] Professor Sir Tom Devine agreed that promises of "favours, sinecures, pensions, offices and straightforward cash bribes became indispensable to secure government majorities".[37]

As for representation going forwards, Scotland was, in the new united parliament, only to get 45 MPs, one more than Cornwall, and only 16 (unelected) peers in the House of Lords.[31]

There were mixed opinions in Scotland about the prospect of a union with England. Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, the only Scottish negotiator to oppose Union, noted "the whole nation appears against (it)". Another negotiator, Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, who was an ardent Unionist, observed it was "contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom".[38] As the seat of the Scottish Parliament, demonstrators in Edinburgh feared the impact of its loss on the local economy. Elsewhere, there was widespread concern about the independence of the kirk, and possible tax rises.[39][page needed] Virtually all of the print discourses of 1699–1706 spoke against incorporating union, creating the conditions for wide spread rejection of the treaty in 1706 and 1707.[40] In the wake of unionist proselytising in the autumn of 1706 and early 1707, many Scots were undecided about the prospect of a union.[41] Rather, there was considerably more support in Scotland for a federal union with England than an incorporative one, similar to the devolved Scottish parliament that would be established within Britain nearly three centuries later.[42]

As the treaty passed through the Parliament of Scotland, opposition was voiced by petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs claimed:

we are not against an honourable and safe union with England, [... but] the condition of the people of Scotland, (cannot be) improved without a Scots Parliament.[43]

According to Scottish historian William Ferguson, the Acts of Union were a "political job" by England that was achieved by economic incentives, patronage and bribery to secure the passage of the Union treaty in the Scottish Parliament in order satisfy English political imperatives, with the union being unacceptable to the Scottish people, including both the Jacobites and Covenanters. The differences between Scottish were "subsumed by the same sort of patriotism or nationalism that first appeared in the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320."[40] Ferguson highlights the well-timed payments of salary arrears to members of Parliament as proof of bribery and argues that the Scottish people had been betrayed by their Parliament.[40] According to Christopher Whatley, however, calls for a union with England began in Scotland itself in the 1690s for the purpose of safeguarding the law, line of succession, and to improve the economy.[44]

Ireland

Ireland, though a kingdom under the same crown, was not included in the union. It remained a separate kingdom, unrepresented in Parliament, and was legally subordinate to Great Britain until the Renunciation Act 1783.

In July 1707 each House of the Parliament of Ireland passed a congratulatory address to Queen Anne, praying that "May God put it in your royal heart to add greater strength and lustre to your crown, by a still more comprehensive Union".[45][46] The British government did not respond to the invitation and an equal union between Great Britain and Ireland was out of consideration until the 1790s. The union with Ireland finally came about on 1 January 1801.

Remove ads

Treaty and passage of the 1707 acts

Summarize
Perspective
Thumb
"Articles of Union otherwise known as Treaty of Union", 1707

Deeper political integration had been a key policy of Queen Anne from the time she acceded to the throne in 1702. Under the aegis of the Queen and her ministers in both kingdoms, the parliaments of England and Scotland (the Act for a Treaty with England 1705) agreed to participate in fresh negotiations for a union treaty in 1705.

Both countries appointed 31 commissioners to conduct the negotiations. Most of the Scottish commissioners favoured union, and about half were government ministers and other officials. At the head of the list was the Duke of Queensberry, and the Lord Chancellor of Scotland, the Earl of Seafield.[47] The English commissioners included the Lord High Treasurer, Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin, the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, William Cowper, Baron Cowper, and a large number of Whigs who supported union. Tories were not in favour of union and only one was represented among the commissioners.[47]

Negotiations between the English and Scottish commissioners took place between 16 April and 22 July 1706 at the Cockpit in London. Each side had its own particular concerns. Within a few days, and with only one face to face meeting of all 62 commissioners,[31] England had gained a guarantee that the Hanoverian dynasty would succeed Queen Anne to the Scottish crown, and Scotland received a guarantee of access to colonial markets, in the hope that they would be placed on an equal footing in terms of trade.[48]

After negotiations ended in July 1706, the acts had to be ratified by both Parliaments. In Scotland, about 100 of the 227 members of the Parliament of Scotland were supportive of the Court Party. For extra votes the pro-court side could rely on about 25 members of the Squadrone Volante, led by the James Graham, 4th Marquess of Montrose and John Ker, 1st Duke of Roxburghe. Opponents of the court were generally known as the Country party, and included various factions and individuals such as the James Hamilton, 4th Duke of Hamilton, John Hamilton, Lord Belhaven and Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who spoke forcefully and passionately against the union, when the Scottish Parliament began its debate on the act on 3 October 1706, but the deal had already been done.[31] The Court party enjoyed significant funding from England and the Treasury and included many who had accumulated debts following the Darien Disaster.[49]

The act ratifying the Treaty of Union was finally carried in the Parliament of Scotland by 110 votes to 69 on 16 January 1707, with a number of key amendments. News of the ratification and of the amendments was received in Westminster, where the Act was passed quickly through both Houses and received the royal assent on 6 March.[50] Though the English Act was later in date, it bore the year '1706' while Scotland's was '1707', as the legal year in England began only on 25 March.

In Scotland, the Duke of Queensberry was largely responsible for the successful passage of the Union act by the Parliament of Scotland. In Scotland, he was greeted by stones and eggs but in England he was cheered for his action.[51] He had personally received around half of the funding awarded by the Westminster Treasury.[citation needed] In April 1707, he travelled to London to attend celebrations at the royal court, and was greeted by groups of noblemen and gentry lined along the road. From Barnet, the route was lined with crowds of cheering people, and once he reached London a huge crowd had formed. On 17 April, the Duke was gratefully received by the Queen at Kensington Palace and the Acts came into effect on 1 May 1707.[51] A day of thanksgiving was declared in England and Ireland but not in Scotland, where the bells of St Giles rang out the tune of "why should I be so sad on my wedding day".[52]

Remove ads

Provisions

Summarize
Perspective
Main article: Treaty of Union
Thumb
Heraldic badge of Queen Anne, depicting the Tudor rose and the Scottish thistle growing from the same stem

The Treaty of Union, agreed between representatives of the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland in 1706, consisted of 25 articles, 15 of which were economic in nature. In Scotland, each article was voted on separately and several clauses in articles were delegated to specialised subcommittees. Article 1 of the treaty was based on the political principle of an incorporating union and this was secured by a majority of 116 votes to 83 on 4 November 1706. To minimise the opposition of the Church of Scotland, an Act was also passed to secure the Presbyterian establishment of the Church, after which the Church stopped its open opposition, although hostility remained at lower levels of the clergy. The treaty as a whole was finally ratified on 16 January 1707 by a majority of 110 votes to 69.[53]

The two Acts incorporated provisions for Scotland to send representative peers from the Peerage of Scotland to sit in the House of Lords. It guaranteed that the Church of Scotland would remain the established church in Scotland, that the Court of Session would "remain in all time coming within Scotland", and that Scots law would "remain in the same force as before". Other provisions included the restatement of the Act of Settlement 1701 and the ban on Roman Catholics from taking the throne. It also created a customs union and monetary union.

The Act provided that any "laws and statutes" that were "contrary to or inconsistent with the terms" of the Act would "cease and become void".

The Scottish Parliament also passed the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707 guaranteeing the status of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The English Parliament passed a similar Act, 6 Ann. c. 8.

Soon after the Union, the Act 6 Ann. c. 40—later named the Union with Scotland (Amendment) Act 1707—united the Privy Council of England and Privy Council of Scotland and decentralised Scottish administration by appointing justices of the peace in each shire to carry out administration. In effect it took the day-to-day government of Scotland out of the hands of politicians and into those of the College of Justice.

On 18 December 1707 the Act for better Securing the Duties of East India Goods was passed which extended the monopoly of the East India Company to Scotland.

In the year following the Union, the Treason Act 1708 abolished the Scottish law of treason and extended the corresponding English law across Great Britain.

Remove ads

Evaluations

Summarize
Perspective

Scotland benefited, says historian G.N. Clark, gaining "freedom of trade with England and the colonies" as well as "a great expansion of markets". The agreement guaranteed the permanent status of the Presbyterian church in Scotland, and the separate system of laws and courts in Scotland. Clark argued that in exchange for the financial benefits and bribes that England bestowed, what it gained was

of inestimable value. Scotland accepted the Hanoverian succession and gave up her power of threatening England's military security and complicating her commercial relations ... The sweeping successes of the eighteenth-century wars owed much to the new unity of the two nations.[54]

Despite initial opposition to the union by many Scots, there was paradoxically more protests from Scots in the eighteenth century over what they believed was the union being disregarded by the Westminster parliament, with Lord Deskford commenting to the Duke of Newcastle in 1755 on the "anxiety" among Scots about "any thing they conceive to be contrary to the union."[55] By the time Samuel Johnson and James Boswell made their tour in 1773, recorded in A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland, Johnson noted that Scotland was "a nation of which the commerce is hourly extending, and the wealth increasing" and in particular that Glasgow had become one of the greatest cities of Britain.[56]

Remove ads

Economic perspective

Summarize
Perspective
Thumb
Portrait of John Smith by Godfrey Kneller, 1708. Smith was one of the commissioners who negotiated the union and was Speaker of the House of Commons in the new united parliament. He is shown by Kneller holding a copy of the Act of Union.

According to the Scottish historian Christopher Smout, prior to the Union of the Crowns the Scottish economy had been flourishing completely independently of the English one, and that it only took a downturn in the wake of English wars, and what was believed to be English sabotage on Scottish economic ambitions.[57] In the years leading to 1707, however, the Scottish economy was lagging behind not only from the impact of wars, but also because of chronic deflation and industrial underdevelopment. Scotland remained a predominantly agrarian society, and the lack of manpower caused by previous conflicts contributed to an underwhelming agricultural output, which intermittently escalated into local food shortages or famines. The Scottish Parliament attempted to combat the issue by attracting foreign investment; duty on ship building materials was lifted, taxes on new manufacturing stocks were cut, and customs on textile and linen goods were removed.[58]

Scotland grew increasingly dependent on its linen industry, which became the biggest source of employment after agriculture and constituted one-third of Scottish industry. Continental linen industries could outcompete Scotland, and protectionist tariffs implemented by Scotland led to tariff wars as European countries closed their markets to Scotland. In this situation, England became the largest foreign market for Scottish linen; however, while the tariffs in place shielded Scotland from the much larger English industry, England also retaliated against them. This forced Scotland to seek economic alternatives.[58] At the time, trade with colonies was rapidly growing in importance in Europe, and trade with colonies was very attractive to Scotland, given its pastoral economy. American colonies had a high demand of agricultural goods such as leather skins of goats and sheep, which would have provided Scotland a valuable source of income. Search for colonial trade, along with the frustration caused by economic and political rivalry with England, led to the Darien scheme – an unsuccessful attempt to establish a Scottish colony in the Gulf of Darién.[59]

The scheme was sabotaged by England in various ways – it was seen as a threat to the privileged position of the East India Company, prompting England to ensure the plan's failure via political and diplomatic overtures to prevent the Netherlands and Hamburg from investing into the scheme and denying assistance.[60] In what was dubbed the "affair of Hamburgh" in Scotland, William III of England persuaded European powers against buying stocks in the scheme; William commented on Darien:

I have been ill-served in Scotland; but I hope some remedies may be found to prevent the inconveniences which may arise from this Act.[61]

English actions against the Darien scheme were also motivated by other factors – the decline in the East India Company's stock values, concerns of Darien causing a labour shortage in the Colony of Jamaica, and the scheme being seen as a threat to "the general peace of Christendom", as Catholic Spain laid a territorial claim to the area.[58]

The failure of the Darien scheme led to a financial crisis in Scotland. The high cost of its project exacerbated the deflation in Scotland.[58] The Bank of Scotland had dangerously low reserves, and in early 1700s a run on the bank occurred, along with temporary suspension of business. Ultimately, the Scottish bank managed to stay solvent, although the persisting deflation and low reserves largely contributed to the feeling of Scottish economy being in a precarious position. Economist Aida Ramos argues that the Darien scheme could have succeeded if it was to receive support from either England or Spain, and that it lacked the capability to create a threat to England or its interests. According to Ramos, the English intervention against the scheme was to meet the expansionary aims of England, as to ensure both its colonial dominance as well as the annexation of Scotland.[60]

By 1703, much of the public along with members of the Scottish government were highly disillusioned with the union, and many believed that the only way to let the Scottish economy flourish was to separate from England. John Clerk of Eldin declared that "the Scots had become England's slaves, since they were denied not only their rights as fellow-Britons but their rights under the Law of Nations", and writer David Black wrote: "England affords us but little of what is necessary, yet they drain us more than any nation". The Scottish Parliament started adopting legislation to counter the English aggression – the first was the Act Anent Peace and War, which was to guarantee that the Scottish foreign policy would be independent of England.[60] The Scottish economy was now facing a crisis, and the parliament was polarised into pro-union and anti-union factions, each arguing for economic upsides.[57]

Ultimately, Scottish ministers voted in favour of the union, despite the lack of public support, with the overwhelming majority of the Scottish population at the time protesting vociferously against any union with England.[40] Many Scots considered themselves to have been betrayed by their own elites, and that the union bill was able to pass only thanks to English bribery.[62] In the first few decades after the union, England did not end up becoming the main trading partner of Scotland, as other European powers became the primary source of imported goods for Scotland. For at least the first 40 years after the union, Scotland persisted in its traditional trade patterns, and the economic situation of Scotland was not as dire as that described in the months leading up to the Acts of Union.[59] By 1799, it was reported that the union of Scotland with England had not only benefitted the Scottish economy, but promoted a "commercial prosperity" unknown to any people.[63]

Remove ads

300th anniversary

Thumb
The £2 coin issued in the United Kingdom in 2007 to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Acts of Union

A commemorative two-pound coin was issued to mark the tercentennial—300th anniversary—of the Union, which occurred two days before the Scottish Parliament general election on 3 May 2007.[64]

The Scottish Government held a number of commemorative events through the year including an education project led by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, an exhibition of Union-related objects and documents at the National Museums of Scotland and an exhibition of portraits of people associated with the Union at the National Galleries of Scotland.[65]

Remove ads

Scottish voting records

Thumb
Map of commissioner voting on the ratification of the Treaty of Union:
  All (or sole) Commissioners absent
  All Commissioners present voting for Union
  Majority of Commissioners present voting for Union
  Equal number of Commissioners voting for and against
  Majority of Commissioners present voting against Union
  All Commissioners present voting against Union
More information Commissioner, Constituency/Position ...
Remove ads

See also

Notes

  1. The citation of this act by this short title was authorised by section 1 of, and the first schedule to, the Short Titles Act 1896. Due to the repeal of those provisions, it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978.
  2. The date would have been recorded at the time as 6 March 1706 (rather than 1707), because England (unlike Scotland) began each legal year on 25 March until the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 changed it to 1 January. Separately, the act itself is dated 1706 because, before the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793, the date on which a Bill became law was the first day of the parliamentary session in which it was passed, unless the act contained a provision to the contrary.[1]
  3. Article I.
  4. The citation of this act by this short title was authorised by section 2 of, and the second schedule to, the Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1964. Due to the repeal of those provisions it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978.
  5. Scottish Gaelic: Achd an Aonaidh
  6. Equivalent to about £25 million in 2023.[25]
  7. About £74 million in 2023.[25]
  8. About £3.3 billion in 2023.[25]
  9. About £3.7 million in 2023.[25]
Remove ads

References

Further reading

External links

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads
Remove ads