1707 England and Scotland Union

The two countries had been united before, of course. The forced territorial entity under the conquering medieval Edward I could perhaps be seen as a sort of union. Relations in the mid 1500s, post Reformation, improved. And on the death of Elizabeth in 1603 Cousin Mary’s son became King James I of England and VI of Scotland - the so called ‘union of the crowns’. The Civil War saw Scottish support for unity with England. But recognition of Charles II as King of Scotland led to conflict. Cromwell invaded Scotland in the 1650s and agreed to union rather than maintain an occupying army. And in 1654 the first Scottish MPs sat in the Westminster Parliament.

So in many ways, despite setbacks along the way, the 1707 Act of Union was really just formalising a closer relationship between the two, something that had been gradually developing for a long time. Yet 2007’s Union tercentenary was barely noticed, let alone celebrated. Nationalists in Scotland (and some in England) tried to play it down, or paint it as an act of betrayal - they were bullied into it, “bought and sold for English gold”. This seems to be one of the main current narratives.

An act of treachery?

The charge from the more romantic opponents of union is that it was an unforgivable act of treachery, as a ‘parcel of rogues’ bribed with £20,000, sold out their country. Not just a crime against the Scottish nation, but against the Scottish people, too. The accompanying riots offered plain evidence of serious opposition to the Union. In short, it was a crooked, corrupt move and the population was dead against it.

So is this true? Well to start with there were actually two Acts of Union - one passed in 1706 by the English Parliament, and one passed in 1707 by the Scottish Parliament. By these two Acts England and Scotland were ‘United into one Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain’. The two had of course largely shared a monarch since 1603.

Notice of troops to quell anti-Union riots 1706

The Union was certainly not popular in Scotland and murderous riots erupted for a time throughout the country. But recent historical research suggests public opinion was more evenly split than was earlier believed. In fact a sizeable minority was neutral. And to be fair, at the start of negotiations, it wasn’t popular in England either.

Religious and European dimension

Protestants in general feared the Catholic Stuarts would re-instate an absolute monarch on the Scottish throne. The late 17^th century saw conflict between Presbyterians and Episcopalians over a major issue for them - control of the Church of Scotland (the Kirk). Presbyterians had been against the proposed Union initially. But they changed their view, deciding not to oppose it once England agreed to protect the independence of the Church of Scotland.

The international dynastic and religious background is key here. The Acts of Union must be seen in a wider European context. An aggressive French Louis XIV showed in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714) why there was such concern. A powerful authoritarian state dominating the continent was a threat to much of Europe. Costly large scale battles at Blenheim and Ramillies, when Union was being discussed, showed both the risks and also more widely what was at stake. Grand Alliance leader Marlborough wanted no backdoor diversions.

Phantom Parliament?

The 17^th century English Revolution’s focus on parliament and a constitutional monarchy had been a continual theme in the minds of many of Scotland’s political figures. During the Scottish Enlightenment Unionists often hoped for the type of civic society growing in the Netherlands, or on the lines of what they saw in London. Such people had for years been persistent in their desire for a treaty with England.

But they realised it would be hard to secure the progress they craved as a small independent state with what politician John Clerk called ‘Scotland’s phantom Parliament’. On top of this, increasing state centralisation in late 17th and 18^th century Europe - in France, Spain, Sweden and Denmark especially - was an established trend.

Allegorical depiction of the Union of the Crowns, Rubens

In 1689 William and Mary had been supportive of Episcopalian type unity, based on the Scottish bishops’ plan for control of the Kirk. But the English Parliament was opposed. And Episcopacy in Scotland was abolished in 1690, alienating a key section of the Scots political class. It was this element that later formed the bedrock of Union opposition.  

Economic imperative

Union had an important economic rationale, too. The 1690s saw great economic hardship in Europe in general and Scotland in particular. Trade north of the border had been badly hurt by England’s Navigation Acts and its wars with Scotland’s chief export market, the Dutch Republic. In 1698 a huge sum was raised in Scotland for the ill-fated Darien scheme (for a colony in the Panama isthmus). This was a monumentally stupid act of self harm. Besides poor leadership, bad planning and a disastrous toll from disease, it didn’t seem to occur to anyone involved that Panama was actually a Spanish territory.

Map of the Darien isthmus 1699 

The Darien fiasco was almost unbelievably costly. It devoured about half Scotland’s available capital, leaving the country virtually bankrupt. Losses were felt throughout the land from the nobility and the middle class down to poor widows. England's Union negotiators offered £400,000 to offset future liability to the English national debt. This sum was used to compensate investors in the Darien catastrophe with nearly 60% of it paid to shareholders and creditors.

Shape of the settlement

Articles of Union 1707

Final drafts of the Union Acts were passed in 1706 in Westminster and in January 1707 in Edinburgh. Of the 25 articles, 15 covered economic issues. Besides the Darien payment, Scotland was clear of the Navigation Acts, so could trade freely with overseas and colonial markets. It created a customs and monetary union. MPs and Scots peers would sit in the English Parliament. The Church of Scotland’s Presbyterian establishment was secured and by re-imposing the Act of Succession the Protestant monarchy was guaranteed. On the legal side the authority of the Court of Sessions and Scots Law would remain.

The Act passed in the Scottish Parliament by 110 votes to 69. James Douglas, Duke of Queensberry, was largely responsible for its successful passage. He was a skilled and shrewd politician who always counted the votes and led the Scottish side in the pre-Union negotiations. He became Secretary of State for Scotland in 1709. Still there’s no doubt the Treasury bribed him with £12,000, while others among those pushing for Union also took sweeteners.

James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry

But was there any other option? Given all the circumstances, there was surely little realistic choice other than Union. Geography and economics were both unavoidable factors. Historian George N Clark stressed the huge benefits that came to Scotland, though many of them took some time to appear. And Burns’ ‘bought and sold for English gold’ line, supposedly referencing the Union, actually came from a much earlier 17^th century folk song says Christopher Whatley, whose academic research here is exceptional. He soberly concludes “Union with England in 1707 may have made more sense for Scotland than has sometimes been allowed. A majority of Scots parliamentarians supported it …Some of them can properly be considered as patriots. Unionist politicians were not altogether the rogues they have been portrayed as”.