The two countries had shared a monarch since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from his cousin Elizabeth I. Attempts had been made in 1606, 1667, and 1689 to unite the two countries, but it was not until the early 18th century that both political establishments came to support the idea, albeit for different reasons.
Political background
Prior to 1603, England and Scotland had different monarchs, but when Elizabeth I died without children, she was succeeded 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]
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 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 a Royalist victory.[9] Presbyterian leaders like Argyll viewed union as a way to ensure free trade between England and Scotland, and preserve a Presbyterian kirk.[10]
Under the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant, the Scots agreed to provide Parliament military support 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 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, a pro-Royalist faction known as the Engagers allied with their former enemies to restore him to the English throne.[11]
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 Kirk Party proclaimed Charles II King of Scotland and England, and in 1650 agreed to restore him to the English throne.
Cromwell at Dunbar, 1650: Scotland was incorporated into the Commonwealth after defeat in the 1650–1652 Anglo-Scots War
In 1653, defeat in the Anglo-Scottish War resulted in Scotland's incorporation into the Commonwealth, largely driven by Cromwell's determination to break the power of the 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, Scotland and Ireland.[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 was dissolved after the Restoration of Charles II in 1660.
The Scottish economy was badly damaged by the 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.[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 Glorious Revolution of 1688, a Scottish Convention met in Edinburgh in April 1689 to agree a new constitutional settlement; during which the Scottish Bishops backed a proposed union in an attempt to preserve Episcopalian control of the kirk. The parliament ("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[e] severely impacted the Scottish commercial system.[26]
Political motivations
The Acts 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 Scotland) succeeding his brother Charles. James was sent to Edinburgh in 1681 as Lord High Commissioner; in August, the Scottish Parliament 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 Scottish Crown. It then went beyond ensuring James's succession to the Scottish 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 Glorious Revolution. The English Parliament generally supported replacing James with his Protestant daughter Mary, but resisted making her Dutch husband William of Orange joint ruler. They gave way only when he threatened to return to the Netherlands, and Mary refused to rule without him.[29] In Scotland, 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]
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,[f] a sum known as The Equivalent, to offset future liability towards the English national debt, which at the time was £18 million,[g] 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][pageneeded]
18th-century French illustration of an opening of the Scottish Parliament
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]
The Union was carried by members of the Scottish elite against the wishes of the great majority. 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][pageneeded]
As the treaty passed through the Scottish Parliament, 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.[40]
Not one petition in favour of Union was received by Parliament. On the day the treaty was signed, the carillonneur in St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, rang the bells to the tune of "Why should I be so sad on my wedding day?"[41] Threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in Parliament imposing martial law.
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.[42] Country party tracts condemned English influence within the existing framework of the Union of the Crowns and asserted the need to renegotiate this union. During this period, the Darien failure, the succession issue and the Worcester seizure all provided opportunities for Scottish writers to attack the Court Party as unpatriotic and reaffirm the need to fight for true interests of Scotland.[42]
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."[42] 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.[42]
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 of 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".[43][44] 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.
Treaty and passage of the 1707 Acts
"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.
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.[46]
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.[48] 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.[49] 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.[49] 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".[50]
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.[51]
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.
Evaluations
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.[52]
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, with little to no interaction between each other. Developing a closer economic partnership with England was unsustainable, and Scotland's main trade partner was continental Europe, especially the Netherlands, where Scotland could trade its wool and fish for luxurious imports such as iron, spices or wine. Scotland and England were generally hostile to each other and were often at war, and the alliance with France gave Scotland privileges that further encouraged developing cultural and economic ties with the continent rather than England. The union of 1603 only served the political and dynastic ambitions of King James and was detrimental to Scotland economically – exports that Scotland offered were largely irrelevant to English economy, and while the Privy Council of Scotland did keep its ability to manage internal economic policy, the foreign policy of Scotland was now in English hands. This limited Scotland's hitherto expansive trade with continental Europe, and forced it into English wars.[54]
While the Scottish economy already suffered because of English wars with France and Spain in the 1620s, the civil wars in England had a particularly disastrous effect on Scotland and left it relatively impoverished as a result. The economy would slowly recover afterwards, but at the cost of being increasingly dependent on trade with England. A power struggle developed between Scotland and England in the 1680s, as Scotland recovered from the political turmoil and set on its own economic ambitions, which London considered a threat to its dominant and well-established position. English wars with continental powers undermined Scottish trade with France and the Netherlands, countries that used to be the Scotland's main trade partners before the union, and the English Navigation Acts severely limited Scottish ability to trade by sea, and made the Scottish ambitions to expand the trade beyond Europe unachievable. Opinion in Scotland at the time was that England was sabotaging Scottish economic expansion.[54]
In the years leading to 1707, 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. In turn, the overreliance of Scottish landowners on foreign goods led to a deficit of financial capital, as gold and silver were exported overseas and deflation occurred. 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.[55]
Scotland grew increasingly dependent on its linen industry, which became the biggest source of employment after agriculture and constituted 1/3 of Scottish industries. 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.[55] 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.[56]
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.[57] 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."[58] 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.[55]
The failure of Darien scheme led to a financial crisis in Scotland. The high cost of its project exacerbated the deflation in Scotland.[55] 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.[57]
By 1703, the Scottish government was 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 anti-English sentiment led to accusation of King William orchestrating the 1699 Glencoe Massacre, and in 1703 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.[57] Scotland would try to establish further autonomy from England with the 1704 Act of Security, which provoked a retaliation from England - Scottish ministers were bribed, and Alien Act 1705 was passed. According to the Alien Act, unless Scotland appointed commissioners to negotiate for union by Christmas, every Scot in England would be treated as an alien, leading to the confiscation of their English estates. Additionally, Scottish wares were to be banned from England. Christopher Smout notes that England desired to expand its influence by annexing Scotland:
In sum, England was now seeking Parliamentary Union for political reasons at a moment when the Scots had become dissatisfied with Regal Union for economic reasons: and one of the main weapons chosen by the English to enforce their will was the threat of economic sanctions. The repeal of the Alien Act before it could come into force scarcely reduced its menace: a big stick is a big stick, even if it is replaced in the cupboard unused.[54]
The act sparked vehement anti-English sentiment in Scotland, and made the already hostile Scottish public more opposed to England:
The crew of an English East Indiaman, the Worcester, that had put into Leith to escape a storm was arrested on a spurious charge of piracy and executed after a parody of a trial, victims of a wave of anti-English hysteria which the Ministers of the Crown dared not be seen to oppose. As late as June, the Scottish Uniornist Cockburn of Ormiston declared he could not find ten men in Parliament willing to join England in a full Union - an exaggeration no doubt, but an indication of the contemporary force of feeling.[54]
The Scottish economy was now facing a crisis, and the parliament was polarised into pro-union and anti-union factions, with the former led by Daniel Defoe. The unionists stressed how important trade with England is to the Scottish economy, and seen trade with continental Europe as not beneficial. They argued that the Scottish economy could survive by trading with England, and sanctions that would result from the Alien Act would collapse the economy. For Defoe, joining the union would not only prevent the Alien Act, but also remove additional limitations and regulations and lead Scotland to prosperity. Anti-unionists questioned the English goodwill and criticised the unionist faction for submitting to the English blackmail. They argued that Scotland could make a recovery by trading with the Netherlands, Spain and Norway, allowing Scotland to diversify its own industries as well. They argued that the union would make Scotland unable to conduct independent trade policy, meaning that any possibility to remove the flaws in Scottish economy would be gone forever, which would turn Scotland into a "mere satellite of the richer kingdom".[54]
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.[42] 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.[59] 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.[56]
300th anniversary
The £2 coin issued in the United Kingdom in 2007 to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Acts of Union
↑ The citation of this Act by this short title was authorised by section 1 of, and Schedule 1 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.
↑ The date would have been recorded at the time as 6 March 1706 (rather than 1707), because England (unlike Scotland) began each 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]
↑ The citation of this Act by this short title was authorised by the Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act 1964, section 2 and Schedule 2. Due to the repeal of those provisions it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978.
The recorded history of Scotland begins with the arrival of the Roman Empire in the 1st century, when the province of Britannia reached as far north as the Antonine Wall. North of this was Caledonia, inhabited by the Picti, whose uprisings forced Rome's legions back to Hadrian's Wall. As Rome finally withdrew from Britain, a Gaelic tribe from Ireland called the Scoti began colonising Western Scotland and Wales. Before Roman times, prehistoric Scotland entered the Neolithic Era about 4000 BC, the Bronze Age about 2000 BC, and the Iron Age around 700 BC.
The Kingdom of Great Britain, officially known as Great Britain, was a sovereign state in Western Europe from 1707 to the end of 1800. The state was created by the 1706 Treaty of Union and ratified by the Acts of Union 1707, which united the kingdoms of England and Scotland to form a single kingdom encompassing the whole island of Great Britain and its outlying islands, with the exception of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The unitary state was governed by a single parliament at the Palace of Westminster, but distinct legal systems—English law and Scots law—remained in use.
The Darien scheme was an unsuccessful attempt, backed largely by investors of the Kingdom of Scotland, to gain wealth and influence by establishing New Caledonia, a colony in the Darién Gap on the Isthmus of Panama, in the late 1690s. The plan was for the colony, located on the Gulf of Darién, to establish and manage an overland route to connect the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The backers knew that the first sighting of the Pacific Ocean by Vasco Núñez de Balboa was after crossing the isthmus through Darién. The expedition also claimed sovereignty over "Crab Isle" in 1698, yet sovereignty was short-lived. The attempt at settling the area did not go well; more than 80 percent of participants died within a year, and the settlement was abandoned twice.
William Paterson was a Scottish trader and banker. He was the founder of the Bank of England and was one of the main proponents of the catastrophic Darien scheme. Later he became an advocate of union with England.
The Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies, also called the Scottish Darien Company, was an overseas trading company created by an act of the Parliament of Scotland in 1695. The act granted the company a monopoly of Scottish trade to India, Africa and the Americas, extraordinary sovereign rights and 21 years of exemptions from taxation.
Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun was a Scottish writer and politician, remembered as an advocate for the non-incorporation of Scotland, and an opponent of the 1707 Act of Union between Scotland and England. Fletcher became an exile in 1683 after being accused of promoting insurrection. He was appointed the cavalry commander of the Monmouth Rebellion, but shortly after landing in England, he killed another leading figure. He again went into exile, this time as a fugitive and with his estates forfeit. He returned with William of Orange, becoming Commissioner of the old Parliament of Scotland.
The Alien Act 1705 was a law passed by the Parliament of England in February 1705, as a response to the Parliament of Scotland's Act of Security 1704, which in turn was partially a response to the English Act of Settlement 1701. Lord Godolphin, the Lord High Treasurer, was instrumental in the Union of 1707 and all the acts leading up to it. The Alien Act was passed to prevent the inconveniences that would occur hastily if these two Kingdoms were not to become one Union.
Scottish national identity is a term referring to the sense of national identity, as embodied in the shared and characteristic culture, languages and traditions, of the Scottish people.
The Parliament of Scotland was the legislature of the Kingdom of Scotland from the 13th century until 1707. The parliament evolved during the early 13th century from the king's council of bishops and earls, with the first identifiable parliament being held in 1235 during the reign of Alexander II, when it already possessed a political and judicial role.
The Treaty of Union is the name usually now given to the treaty which led to the creation of the new state of Great Britain. The treaty united the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland to be "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain". At the time it was more often referred to as the Articles of Union.
The Scottish colonization of the Americas comprised a number of Scottish colonial settlements in the Americas during the early modern period. These included the colony of Nova Scotia in 1629, East Jersey in 1683, Stuarts Town, Carolina in 1684 and New Caledonia in 1698.
David Boyle, 1st Earl of Glasgow was a Scottish politician and peer. He was the last Treasurer-depute before the Union with England.
The formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has involved personal and political union across Great Britain and the wider British Isles. The United Kingdom is the most recent of a number of sovereign states that have been established in Great Britain at different periods in history, in different combinations and under a variety of polities. Historian Norman Davies has counted sixteen different states over the past 2,000 years.
Scotland in the early modern period refers, for the purposes of this article, to Scotland between the death of James IV in 1513 and the end of the Jacobite risings in the mid-eighteenth century. It roughly corresponds to the early modern period in Europe, beginning with the Renaissance and Reformation and ending with the start of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution.
The Restoration was the return of the monarchy to Scotland in 1660 after the period of the Commonwealth, and the subsequent three decades of Scottish history until the Revolution and Convention of Estates of 1689. It was part of a wider Restoration in the British Isles that included the return of the Stuart dynasty to the thrones of England and Ireland in the person of Charles II.
The economy of Scotland in the early modern era encompasses all economic activity in Scotland between the early sixteenth century and the mid-eighteenth. The period roughly corresponds to the early modern era in Europe, beginning with the Renaissance and Reformation and ending with the last Jacobite risings and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.
The Glorious Revolution in Scotland refers to the Scottish element of the 1688 Glorious Revolution, in which James VII was replaced by his daughter Mary II and her husband William III as joint monarchs of Scotland, England and Ireland. Prior to 1707, Scotland and England shared a common monarch but were separate legal entities, so decisions in one did not bind the other. In both countries, the Revolution confirmed the primacy of Parliament over the Crown, while the Church of Scotland was re-established as a Presbyterian rather than Episcopalian polity.
Scotland under the Commonwealth is the history of the Kingdom of Scotland between the declaration that the kingdom was part of the Commonwealth of England in February 1652, and the Restoration of the monarchy with Scotland regaining its position as an independent kingdom, in June 1660.
Scottish trade in the early modern era includes all forms of economic exchange within Scotland and between the country and locations outwith its boundaries, between the early sixteenth century and the mid-eighteenth. The period roughly corresponds to the early modern era, beginning with the Renaissance and Reformation and ending with the last Jacobite risings and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.
Sir Patrick Johnston (1650–1736) of Edinburgh was a Scottish merchant and politician who sat in the Parliament of Scotland from 1702 to 1707 and as a Whig in the British House of Commons between 1707 and 1713. He was Lord Provost of Edinburgh three times from 1700 to 1702, from 1704 to 1706, and from 1708 to 1710.
↑ The 1657 Act's long title was An Act and Declaration touching several Acts and Ordinances made since 20 April 1653, and before 3 September 1654, and other Acts
↑ The Humble Address of the Commissioners to the General Convention of the Royal Burrows of this Ancient Kingdom Convened the Twenty-Ninth of October 1706, at Edinburgh.
1 2 3 Ramos, Aida (2018). Shifting Capital Mercantilism and the Economics of the Act of Union of 1707. Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. pp.28–36. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96403-4. ISBN978-3-319-96403-4.
↑ “Act of Parliament constituting the Company of Scotland, Trading to Africa and the Indies.” Edinburgh, 26 June 1695 in Hart, Francis Russell. The Disaster of Darien: The Story of the Scots Settlement and the Causes of its Failure 1699–1701. (Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press, 1929), 190.
↑ Pride, George S. (1950). The Treaty of Union of Scotland and England, 1707. London: Nelson. pp.31–34.
Campbell, R. H. (1964). "The Anglo-Scottish Union of 1707. II. The Economic Consequences". The Economic History Review. 16 (3): 468–477. doi:10.2307/2592849. JSTOR2592849.
Cullen, K. J. (2010). Famine in Scotland: The "Ill Years" of the 1690s. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN978-0-7486-3887-1.
Harris, Tim (2007). Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720. Penguin. ISBN978-0-1410-1652-8.
Harris, Tim (2015). Rebellion: Britain's First Stuart Kings, 1567–1642. OUP Oxford. ISBN978-0-1987-4311-8.
Horwitz, Henry (1986). Parliament, Policy and Politics in the Reign of William III. MUP. ISBN978-0-7190-0661-6.
Kaplan, Lawrence (May 1970). "Steps to War: The Scots and Parliament, 1642–1643". Journal of British Studies. 9 (2): 50–70. doi:10.1086/385591. JSTOR175155. S2CID145723008.
Larkin, James F.; Hughes, Paul L., eds. (1973). Stuart Royal Proclamations: Volume I. Clarendon Press.
Lockyer, R (1998). James VI and I. London: Addison Wesley Longman. ISBN978-0-5822-7962-9.
MacIntosh, Gillian (2007). Scottish Parliament under Charles II, 1660–1685. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN978-0-7486-2457-7.
McDonald, Alan (1998). The Jacobean Kirk, 1567–1625: Sovereignty, Polity and Liturgy. Routledge. ISBN978-1-8592-8373-8.
Mitchison, Rosalind (2002). A History of Scotland. Routledge. ISBN978-0-4152-7880-5.
Morrill, John (1990). Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. Longman. ISBN978-0-5820-1675-0.
Munck, Thomas (2005). Seventeenth-Century Europe: State, Conflict and Social Order in Europe 1598–1700. Palgrave. ISBN978-1-4039-3619-6.
Richards, E (2004). OBritannia's Children: Emigration from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland since 1600. Continuum. ISBN1-8528-5441-3.
Riley, P.J.W. (1969). "The Union of 1707 as an Episode in English Politics". The English Historical Review. 84 (332): 498–527. JSTOR562482.
Robertson, Barry (2014). Royalists at War in Scotland and Ireland, 1638–1650. Routledge. ISBN978-1-3170-6106-9.
Smout, T. C. (1964). "The Anglo-Scottish Union of 1707. I. The Economic Background". The Economic History Review. 16 (3): 455–467. doi:10.2307/2592848. JSTOR2592848.
Stephen, Jeffrey (2010). "Scottish Nationalism and Stuart Unionism: The Edinburgh Council, 1745". Journal of British Studies. 49 (1): 47–72. doi:10.1086/644534. ISSN0021-9371. S2CID144730991.
Watt, Douglas (2007). The Price of Scotland: Darien, Union and the wealth of nations. Luath Press. ISBN978-1-9063-0709-7.
Whatley, C (2001). Bought and sold for English Gold? Explaining the Union of 1707. East Linton: Tuckwell Press. ISBN978-1-8623-2140-3.
Whatley, C (2006). The Scots and the Union. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN978-0-7486-1685-5.
Whatley, Christopher (1989). "Economic Causes and Consequences of the Union of 1707: A Survey". Scottish Historical Review. 68 (186): 150–181. JSTOR25530416.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
