The two countries had shared a monarch since the "personal"Union of the Crowns in 1603, whenJames VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from his cousinElizabeth I to become (in addition) 'James I of England', styledJames VI and I. Attempts had been made to try to unite the two separate countries, in 1606, 1667, and in 1689 (following the1688 Dutch invasion of England, and subsequentdeposition ofJames II of England by his daughterMary and her husbandWilliam 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, "though not the Scots people",[citation needed] came to support the idea of an international "Treaty of political, monetary and trade Union", albeit for different reasons.
Prior to 1603,England andScotland had different monarchs, but whenElizabeth 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 inpersonal union by James (reigning asJames 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 SirEdwin 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 nominallyEpiscopal in structure, the two were very different in doctrine; theChurch of Scotland, or kirk, wasCalvinist in doctrine, and viewed manyChurch of England practices as little better than Catholicism.[8] As a result, attempts to impose religious policy by James and his sonCharles I ultimately led to the 1639–1651Wars of the Three Kingdoms. The 1639–1640Bishops' Wars confirmed the primacy of the Scots kirk, and established aCovenanter government in Scotland. The Scots remained neutral when theFirst English Civil War began in 1642, before becoming concerned at the impact on Scotland of an English Royalist victory.[9] Presbyterian leaders likeArgyll viewed union as a way to ensure free trade between England and Scotland, and preserve a Scots Presbyterian kirk.[10]
Under the 1643Solemn 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 theEnglish Independents, and associated radical groups like theLevellers, 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 theEngagers allied with their former enemies to restore him to the English throne.[11]
After defeat in the 1647–1648Second English Civil War, Scotland was occupied by English troops, which were withdrawn once those whom Cromwell held responsible had been replaced by theKirk Party. In December 1648,Pride's Purge paved the way for theTrial of Charles I in England by excluding MPs who opposed it. Following theexecution of Charles I in January 1649, and establishment of theCommonwealth of England, the Scots Kirk Party proclaimedCharles II King of Scots and England and, in the 1650Treaty of Breda, resolved to restore him to the English throne. Instead, defeat in theAnglo-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 1652Tender of Union was followed on 12 April 1654 byAn Ordinance by the Protector for the Union of England and Scotland, creating the Commonwealth of England and Scotland.[13] It was ratified by theSecond 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]
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 theRestoration of Charles II in 1660.
The Scottish economy was badly damaged by the (protectionist) EnglishNavigation Acts of 1660 and 1663 andEngland's wars with theDutch 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 the1688 invasion of England by a Dutch fleet and army led by PrinceWilliam of Orange andhis wife Mary (daughter of James II), and their deposition of James II as King of England, aScottish 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 theSeven ill years which led to strained relations with England.[22] In 1698, theCompany of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies received a charter to raise capital through public subscription.[23] The Company invested in theDarién scheme, an ambitious plan funded almost entirely by Scottish investors to build a colony on theIsthmus 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]
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 ofFrance,Sweden,Denmark-Norway andSpain. While there were exceptions, such as the Dutch Republic or theRepublic 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 1681Exclusion Crisis, caused by English resistance to the CatholicJames II (of England, VII of Scots) succeeding his brother Charles II. James was sent to Edinburgh in 1681 asLord 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 andcoup d'etat (subsequently entitled as "theGlorious Revolution"). The EnglishConvention Parliament generally supported replacing King James II with his Protestant daughterMary, holding to their "legal fiction" that James, by fleeing to France, had abandoned his English subjects and "abdicated". They resisted, however, making her Dutch husbandWilliam 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 theThree 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 betweenPresbyterians andEpiscopalians and William's position as a fellow Calvinist put him in a much stronger position. He originally insisted on retaining Episcopacy, and theCommittee 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 1689–1692Jacobite 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:
The Convention of the Estates was not a parliament so the act did not really count as binding and
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.
The English succession was provided for by the EnglishAct of Settlement 1701, which ensured that the monarch of England would be a Protestant member of theHouse of Hanover. Until the union of parliaments, the Scottish throne might be inherited by a different successor afterQueen Anne, who had said in her first speech to the English parliament that a union was "very necessary".[31] The ScottishAct of Security 1704, however, was passed after the English parliament, without consultation with Scotland, had designated ElectoressSophia of Hanover (granddaughter of James I and VI) as Anne's successor, if Anne died childless. The Act of Security granted theParliament of Scotland, thethree 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 theAlien 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]
The Scottish economy was severely impacted byprivateers during the 1688–1697Nine Years' War and the 1701War of the Spanish Succession, with theRoyal Navy focusing on protecting English ships. This compounded the economic pressure caused by theDarien scheme, and theseven 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 theSquadrone 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 asThe 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]
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 historianChristopher 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 SirTom 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][page needed]
As the treaty passed through the Parliament of Scotland, opposition was voiced by petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. TheConvention 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, thecarillonneur inSt 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 imposingmartial 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 theWorcester 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 historianWilliam 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 theJacobites andCovenanters. The differences between Scottish were "subsumed by the same sort of patriotism or nationalism that first appeared in theDeclaration 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, 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 theRenunciation Act 1783.
In July 1707 each House of theParliament 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. Theunion with Ireland finally came about on 1 January 1801.
"Articles of Union otherwise known as Treaty of Union", 1707
Deeper political integration had been a key policy ofQueen 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 (theAct 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 theCockpit 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 theHanoverian 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 Englandbegan 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. FromBarnet, 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 atKensington 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]
TheTreaty of Union, agreed between representatives of theParliament of England and theParliament 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 theChurch of Scotland, an Act was also passed to secure thePresbyterian 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, theTreason Act 1708 abolished the Scottish law oftreason and extended the corresponding English law across Great Britain.
Scotland benefited, says historianG.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 historianChristopher Smout, prior to theUnion 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 theNetherlands, 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 thealliance 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 KingJames and was detrimental to Scotland economically – exports that Scotland offered were largely irrelevant to English economy, and while thePrivy 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, thecivil 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 EnglishNavigation 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 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.[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 theDarien scheme - an unsuccessful attempt to establish a Scottish colony in theGulf of Darién.[56]
The scheme was sabotaged by England in various ways - it was seen as a threat to the privileged position of theEast India Company, prompting England to ensure the plan's failure via political and diplomatic overtures to prevent the Netherlands andHamburg 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 theColony 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 the Darien scheme led to a financial crisis in Scotland. The high cost of its project exacerbated the deflation in Scotland.[55] TheBank 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 1699Glencoe Massacre, and in 1703 the Scottish Parliament started adopting legislation to counter the English aggression - the first was theAct 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 theAct of Security 1704, which provoked a retaliation from England - Scottish ministers were bribed, andAlien 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 UniornistCockburn 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 byDaniel 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]
^The citation of this act by thisshort title was authorised by section 1 of, and the first schedule to, theShort Titles Act 1896. Due to the repeal of those provisions, it is now authorised by section 19(2) of theInterpretation Act 1978.
^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 theCalendar (New Style) Act 1750 changed it to 1 January. Separately, the act itself is dated 1706 because, before theActs 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 section 2 of, and the second schedule to, theStatute 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.
^Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, ed. (1906). "The Union with Scotland".The constitutional documents of the Puritan revolution, 1625-1660. p. 418 – via Internet Archive. (photocopy: machine-readable text of this page available at"98. An Ordinance by the Protector for the Union of England and Scotland".Constitution.org. Archived fromthe original on 22 February 2020.)
^The 1657 Act's long title wasAn 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.
^abcRamos, 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 ofScotland, Trading to Africa and the Indies." Edinburgh, 26 June 1695 inHart, Francis Russell (1929).The Disaster of Darien: The Story of the Scots Settlement and the Causes of its Failure 1699–1701. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press. p. 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.
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.
.svg)
