The
Geographer
18-19
Spring 2014
The Union
Professor Christopher A Whatley, Professor of Scottish History, University of Dundee
Nations and states rise and
fall. Sometimes they vanish.
Union states too split asunder,
the most spectacular recent
example being the Soviet Union,
seemingly impregnable during
the Cold War, but after 1991,
gone. In September this year,
the electorate in Scotland will
decide the future of the historic
union that has held Scotland and
England together for over three
centuries.
their Scottish subjects. Hostility
towards England mounted.
Nevertheless there was also
sporadic interest from Scotland in
a union of trade. Scotland wanted
to secure legal commerce along
with the protection by England’s
royal navy of Scottish merchant
vessels on the pirate-infested high
seas. Closer to home the English
market was vital, but at risk if
relations between Scotland and
England deteriorated.
Opinion polls suggest that not
much more than a third of the
electorate will vote for Scottish
independence, but that the Scots
strongly approve of devolution
and want greater powers for
Holyrood. During the union era,
it is when the Scottish dimension
has been ignored by Westminster
that demands for reform of or
challenges to the British union
state have arisen. Only since the
1960s has there been serious
enthusiasm for independence,
ignited by the SNP which prior to
the Second World War attracted
a mere 1.1% of the vote (in the
1935 general election).
English politicians, however,
were inclined to ignore Scotland.
Monarchs were different.
James VI and I had advocated
closer union, but found few
supporters at his London court.
It was a century later, during
the reign of Queen Anne, that
the present parliamentary
union was forged, in the winter
of 1706-7. Anne’s anxiety over
her successor, allied to worries
about a possible alliance between
Scotland and France, led to the
conclusion south of the border
that a parliamentary union was
the surest way of securing the
Protestant succession – and
England’s northern border from a
French invasion from Scotland.
It can come as a surprise that
it was a Scot, John Mair, who
first proposed a union with
England, in the 1520s. For too
long Scotland and England had
been at loggerheads, periodically
resorting to war. Others agreed.
It made sense for the countries
which shared the same island
to unite. After the Reformation,
the dominant religion of both
was Protestantism, while English
was the main language. By
the later 17th century, there
was a common enemy, France,
under Louis XIV who aspired to
universal monarchy. He was also
a Catholic, and in Protestant
Britain there was a visceral hatred
of the Church of Rome. By this
time England and Scotland were
already joined in a dynastic union,
which had come about in 1603
when Scotland’s King James VI
became James I of England.
The regal union, however, did
little to reduce Anglo-Scottish
tensions. Monarchs of the joint
kingdom favoured England over
The Scots, then as now, were
deeply divided on the union issue.
Some were simply confused.
Strong support came from those
Scots who had been behind the
Revolution, which had restored
Presbyterianism and established
constitutional monarchy. Under
the Stuarts, many Scots (known
as Whigs) had been fined or
imprisoned. Some were tortured
or executed or forced into exile.
‘Presbyterian memory’ convinced
many that, to secure the gains
of the Revolution, union with
England was necessary – to resist
the Jacobites