Lies about the Union

I am so fed up with hearing absolute slanderous lies about the origins of the Anglo-Scottish Union that I am going to clarify this matter and then refer anyone else who vomits about a pile of crap about their take on it here.

Firstly the Union of the countries of Scotland and England took place in 1707. This was an incorporating union of the PARLIAMENTS, and the final stage of union that has taken place until present. The Union of the CROWNS did NOT take place in 1707, it took place in 1603 and represented a DYNASTIC union where the countries of Scotland shared a monarch only and each country retained its own parliament. So:

1603 - Union of the Crowns (dynastic)
1707 - Union of the Parliaments (Incorporating)

Ok, I'm glad we are now clear on this matter.

Secondly, the view that (as I heard to eloquently put yesterday) "As a result of the failed Darien scheme, Scotland went 'cap in hand' to England for union, due to poverty" (Curtosey University of Strathclye Architecture Department)is but one arguement. It is NOT conclusive. Darien is NOT the reason for union. POVERTY is not the reason for union. The union is NOT for economic reasons. Anyone who has to explain why a union came about in 1707 should simply repeat this word for word and save themselves looking ignorant:

"The 1707 union came about for NUMEROUS, VARIED reasons, including economic, social and political factors. The most important reasons for union are debatable according to the perspectives of different historians".

Most often people who want to say things like "the union happened mostly for economic reasons, there were a few wars going on at the time, but yeah - economic reasons" (Curtosey University of Strathclyde Department of Sociology) are really just looking to show what impact the union had on something else (i.e. architecture, education &c.) so should therefore just repeat the above quote. If they feel the actual reasons for Union are important to what they are studying then they should enroll in a proper history class on the union with a proper scholar who researches the topic themselves. Otherwise don't preach unresearched arguements which are not backed up by the evidence, and which you probably gained half from your out-dated high school history education from the 60s and half from some ill-informed TV programme you saw on BBC2. Possible economic reasons for the union do exist. However so do other reasons, and I personally would stress the importance of political considerations in assessing the reasons for the union. Let's just think about this on the most basic level for a moment. I'm sure that most would agree that late seventeenth/early eighteenth century European states were interested in expanding their power. I'm sure that having an empire was a thing most states would seek for the political and trade benefits associated? Well, assuming you agree this, why would England agree to a union with Scotland if there was nothing in it for them? Let's see - according to our economic reasons perspective, Scotland's failed attempt at empire - darien - had created a small country with poverty rife. Why would England want this country if economic factors were the only ones of real influence over the union? HMMM... could it be that there were some other political considerations given the European and international context? I'll let you decide after you read the bibliography. In addition to that, if England accepted the union because Scotland came "cap in hand" to England this would assume that the country had some sort of philanthropic desire to help the country next door. I'm sure any semi-educated person would find this hard to believe given the time frame we are talking about.

I wont go into the other reasons for union here. Suffice to say I have spent a YEAR considering this in much detail and involving many archival sources and still I am unclear in my mind what the reasons for union were. This is why it is so enraging to see someone who hasn't lifted a research-based academic history book in their life spouting a pile of shite about how Scotland waved byebye to all her money on a boat to Shitsville, South America and then England kindly saved our poor poverty stricken country from a hell of its own making. SCREW YOU. People wonder why Scots are defeatist? People wonder why Scots will assume defeat in popular sporting events and savour one tiny win as the miricle of the century? People wonder why this country has an inferiority complex and chip on the shoulder nationalist attitude? Start by telling the history of the place properly!! If it is drummed into people that Scotland couldn't survive as an independent country anymore and had to get on her knees and beg to the English to save it then no f-ing wonder Scots dont think they can win a football game. I'm so fed up with these myths based on absolute bollocks that some idiot heard off the television.

The uninformed beleifs of people as mentioned above not only make what I am doing and have been doing seem pointless and meaningless, but disgrace the work of the historians out there researching this topic and putting a life times work into something that some idiot will ride roughshod over without another thought.

One final word of warning: Information on historical topics on the Radio, Television and in the papers is BIASED. It will usually be based on the research of one person, if any person, and this shows ONE VIEW of MANY VIEWS. Treat with CAUTION.

If you are really interested in learning about this topic enough to converse on an intellectual and informed level about then I suggest you read these two books:

Allan I. Macinnes, A Union for Empire

Chris Whatley and Derek Patrick, The Scots and the Union

And once you have read them consider the conficting opinions and read what is in their bibliographies including the primary material.

If this sounds too hard then I stress - REPEAT AFTER ME:

"The 1707 union came about for NUMEROUS, VARIED reasons, including economic, social and political factors. The most important reasons for union are debatable according to the perspectives of different historians".