Be careful what you wish for.....
As we are very
near to Scotland's referendum regarding separation from Great Britain it is very tempting to become infused with a
sort of spirit of adventure and of the
unknown that tends to evolve from such momentous events. It is my opinion that
the more generally uninformed one is, the more the "romance" of such
efforts seems to enthuse and inspire.
The problem with such persons is that , unfortunately, their votes count
as much as those of the informed
literate and politically aware.
As an American
observer, detached from all the hoo-hah and especially from the jingoistic
Scottish nationalism of Alexander
Salmond, Scottish First Minister and
prime proponent of separation
from the United Kingdom it is, no doubt somewhat easier to be objective. Since I am
also a historian, bear with me for a brief review of how we (they) got here. It
is generally accepted that the Britons and Scots , while having mixed their DNA
freely over the centuries, come from somewhat different stock as settlers of
the island (we'll call it Britain, for simplicity) which they co-inhabit. The
Scots, as well as the Irish, another group who have already (for the most part)
become independent of England, are largely
of early Norse, (before the word Viking,
used to describe their raids on the island(s) came into use) stock. In fact many
Scots immigrated from Ireland, Dublin being originally a Viking town, and
interwove their gene pool with the remnants of the Picts whose civilization
inhabited Neolithic and Bronze Age
northern Britain, essentially most of what we now call Scotland. It was these Picts and their descendants that
caused the Roman emperor Hadrian to have the famous wall built to keep the
"savages" above more civilized Roman Brittania. By the 5th century,
the Roman occupation of Britain ended, and the Picts had generally consolidated
rule over most of what we now consider as Scotland. It is worthy of mention
that at the same time, the settlers of southern England were of Celtic and
Saxon descent, differing in language and, because of long contact with Rome,
religion.
A second wave
of Norse derived settlement occurred in the
sixth and/or seventh century from Irish immigrants and in the seventh
century by the Irish Christian missionary, St, Columba. According
to 9th- and 10th-century literature, the Gaelic kingdom of Dál Riata was
founded on the west coast of Scotland in the 6th century. Irish missionary
Columba founded a monastery on Iona and introduced the previously pagan Scotti
to Celtic Christianity, and with less success the Picts of Pictland. The King of the Picts later expelled the Columban (Gaelic) church in favor of the
Roman, to hinder the influence of the Scoti on his kingdom and
to avoid a war with Northumbria, A Brittanic kingdom to the south. In the same period Angles had conquered the
previously Brythonic (Brittanic) territory south of the Clyde and Forth,
initially creating the Anglo Saxon kingdom of Bernicia, later becoming a
part of Northumbria. Towards the end of the 8th century all three
kingdoms were raided, settled and to some extent came under Viking control.
Successive defeats by the Norse forced the Picts and Scoti to mute their
historic hostility to each other and unite in the 9th century, to form the
Kingdom of Scotland.
The Kingdom of
Scotland was united under the descendants of Kenneth MacAlpin, first king of a united Scotland. His
descendants, ( House of Alpin) , fought among each other during frequent
disputed successions over several hundred years, with the last Alpin king, Malcolm II, dying
without issue in the early 11th century and the kingdom passing through his
daughter's son, Duncan I, who started a new line of kings known to House of Dunkeld . The last Dunkeld king, Alexander
III, died in 1286 leaving only a single infant granddaughter known to history
as the Maid of Norway, as heir. Four years later, Margaret, Maid of Norway
herself died in a shipwreck en route to
Scotland. At this point reflect that the
throne and therefore the destiny of
Scotland England had been controlled by Scots liberally intermarrying
with other Nordic peoples. The death of the maid of Norway and the muddled
question of Scottish succession drew the
close personal attention of English King, Edward I,(Longshanks), who took advantage of the questioned succession to launch a series of conquests into
Scotland. (See Braveheart!) The
resulting Wars of Scottish Independence were fought in the late 13th and early
14th centuries as Scotland passed back and forth between the House of Balliol
and the House of Bruce.
Scotland's
ultimate victory in the Wars of Independence under David II confirmed Scotland
as a fully independent and sovereign kingdom. When David II died without issue,
his nephew Robert II established the House of Stewart (the spelling was changed to Stuart in the 16th century), which
would rule Scotland uncontested for the next three centuries. In 1603,
Elizabeth I (Tudor) died without heir. The Tudor line survived in Scotland, as James
VI, Stuart king of Scotland, was the grandson of Margaret Tudor, wife of James
IV (Stuart). James VI, therefore, inherited the throne of England in 1603, and
the Stuart kings and queens ruled both independent kingdoms until the Act of
Union in 1707 merged the two kingdoms into a new state, the Kingdom of Great
Britain. Queen Anne was the last Stuart monarch, ruling until 1714. Since 1714,
the succession of the British monarchs of the houses of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg
and Gotha (Windsor) has been due to their descent from James VI and I of the
House of Stuart. This literally means, if you believe all that "king and
queen" stuff, that in fact, Scotland is the hereditary ruler of England!
There are
numerous issues cited by the Scots in defense of independence, and some which
have not been so publically debated, but are also historically relevant,
religion being one of those. Until the mid 1500s, the Scots monarchy had been
relatively sympathetic toward the Roman Catholic Church, but with the
Protestant reformation, began to be riven by disputes between Catholics and the new strenuous Protestantism
of John Knox and others. While Henry VIII
had split from the Roman church
in 1532, there was significant difference between the Church of England, with
Bishops and the King as titular head and the more independent minded Kirk
(Church of Scotland), Protestant, Calvinist and not particularly fond of the
Church of England (Anglican for brevity).- and especially of the political
power granted Anglican bishops As an example, the Kirk recognizes only two
sacraments, baptism and Holy communion, and certainly did not recognize the
divine right of English monarchs! Catholic sentiment did remain strong among
highland and island Scots, but most land owners, powerful lairds were Presbyterian.
On his
ascendancy, James VI took his position as head of the Anglican Church very
seriously, and attempted to Anglicize the rites and rituals of the Kirk, with
little success. His son Charles I went further, attempting to force the
Anglican Book of Common Prayer onto
Scots, with results eventually leading in the mid 1600s to the English Civil
War, as English Puritans, modeling their worship in some ways on that of the
Scots, beheaded Charles. The Stuart restoration, in 1660, left Scotland once
again independent, but with a very different Stuart on the English throne.
Charles II, "the merry monarch" very mindful of his father's beheading refused to make waves. His younger brother James, however, just prior to ascending to the throne on Charles II's death, converted
to Catholicism to the great dismay of Parliament
and the Anglican Bishops. Since James II was not a young man and had no son who
would be a Catholic heir, it was a sort of tacit agreement that he'd be allowed
to serve out his life, and a proper Protestant, his daughter Mary, it was
assumed, would become sovereign. James II
established Catholic toleration,
elevated Catholics to important state positions and generally outraged numerous
of his subjects. The final insult, however was his marriage to a young Catholic,
Mary of Modena, and the prompt siring of
a son, James Francis Edward Stuart to be
raised Catholic. James II was invited to
leave and take his Catholic wife and son with him, and Mary, with her husband
William of Orange, Dutch Stadholder became
king and queen, beginning the current unbroken string of Protestant, Anglican
monarchs.
In Scotland, The
Estates issued a Claim of Right that suggested that James had forfeited the
crown by his actions (in contrast to England, which relied on the legal fiction
of an abdication) and offered it to William and Mary, which William accepted,
along with limitations on royal power. The final settlement restored Presbyterianism
and abolished the bishops, who had generally supported James. However, William,
who was more tolerant than the Kirk tended to be, passed acts restoring the
Episcopalian clergy excluded after the Revolution.
Although
William's supporters dominated the government, there remained a significant
following for James II, now in exile in France, particularly in the Highlands. He
was referred to by the English and some lowland Scots, as "the Old Pretender"
(to the throne), while Highland and
island Scots (in the Hebrides, Shetlands, etc) frequently referred to James II
as "the King Over the Water" as he remained in exile in France and
sometimes Italy. His cause, which became
known as Jacobinism, from the Latin (Jacobs) for James, led to a series of
risings. An initial Jacobite military attempt was led by John Graham, Viscount
Dundee. His forces, almost all Highlanders, defeated William's forces in 1689, but they took heavy losses and Dundee
was slain in the fighting. Without his leadership the Jacobite army was soon
defeated at the Battle of Dunked. In the aftermath of the Jacobi defeat on 13
February 1692 in an incident known as the Massacre of Glencoe, 38 members of
the Clan MacDonald of Glencoe were killed by members of the Earl of Argyll's
Regiment of Foot, on the grounds that they had not been prompt in pledging
allegiance to the new monarchs. The Glencoe massacre hardened highland Scots, many
of whom were Catholic sympathizers or worshippers, against the English Crown
and even their own lowland compatriots, many of whom were of English descent,
and far wealthier that the highlanders.
By the start of
the 18th century, a political union between Scotland and England became increasingly
politically and economically attractive to the Scots , promising to open up the
much larger markets of England and it's Empire. The Scottish parliament voted in 1707 to adopt the Treaty of Union. It was a full economic union, since most of its 25
articles dealt with economic relationships and arrangements for the new state
of "Great Britain". It added
45 Scots to the 513 members of the House of Commons and 16 Scots to the 190
members of the House of Lords, and ended the Scottish parliament (since
restored in 1999). It also replaced the
Scottish systems of currency, taxation and laws regulating trade with laws made
in London. Scottish law remained separate from English law, and the religious
system was not changed. England had about five times the population of Scotland
at the time, and about 36 times as much wealth.
Skipping much that
is only peripherally relevant, the present situation is that while Scotland has
long been a labor Party (or its prior equivalents) stronghold, Conservative controlled
British Parliaments have in some ways
continued to alienate many Scots. The reestablishment of the Scottish
Parliament, while granting local control in local matters, has fallen short of
allowing Scottish self determination, so here we are.
So what are the
pros and cons of Scottish independents and what are the issues?
Mr. Salmond
tends to focus on the whole and has offered very little specificity in
answering some of the thornier questions. In no particular order here are some
of those.
The money issue: There is no certainty as to what monetary
system might be enacted if the British refuse to allow Scots to use the Pound
Sterling. A corollary to this is the
financial market uncertainty which would almost assuredly immediately ensue.
Loss of international influence: A divided U.K. would be a
weaker member of NATO and would cause a "huge blow to Britain's political
weight," according to a senior
fellow with the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies. Even more severe, Scotland
would have almost no international standing to start with. The new nation would
likely have to reapply to enter the European Union. This seems a no brainer,
until one considers that other European
governments (Spain for one) are dealing with separatist movements of their own
and would rather not legitimize the Scottish government. Allowing Scotland to
separate and then join the EU would place these other nations on a very
slippery slope. The Spanish government is wary and possibly "terrified" of the
Scottish National Party. It is dealing with a strong separatist movement in
Catalonia, and is afraid that a win for Scottish independence would make it
harder to ignore Catalonian calls for a similar referendum. Belgium also has
independence-minded Walloon politicians that may be emboldened by a win for
Scottish nationalists. . One can almost envision Basque and/or Catalonian separatists preparing
the ballots!
Loss of Business and industry: One of the UK's most
venerable and largest insurers, Standard Life has already weighed in on the issue
- The pensions and savings firm, which
has had its headquarters in Scotland for 189 years, is drawing up contingency
plans to potentially relocate funds, people and operations to England if Scots
vote to leave the UK in September. This probably the tip of the iceberg if
there is any currency uncertainty, which there almost assuredly would be.
Long term debt: Scots would be liable for their "share"
of the UK's huge national debt. Assertions
by Mr Salmond that Scotland's "share"
of North Sea and Shetland oil reserves will make up much the shortfall, look past the fact that the recovery
cost for much of that oil is so high that tax breaks and incentives to
producers will reduce profitability to the extent that national income will see
relatively little improvement. This is problematic , since Scotland already uses
rather more, per capita of UK social services
than the "lower " UK. Although Salmond pooh-poohs these concerns, many feel there will be significant
austerity required which many of these
same voters will feel.
So what went wrong?
Start with a nation many of whose population have never forgiven the one
time banning of the clans. Admittedly, these are highlanders, but it makes a
good rallying cry. More importantly, consider a British parliamentary system
which almost makes the US Congress seem efficient. Far from a meritocracy, The House of lords still seats
96 "hereditary peers" who get to make national policy by virtue
solely of their birth and the title accompanying it. even worse, the Lords
still number among their number 26 Anglican Bishops who are members simply
because of their office. Collectively, that means 122 members of the upper chamber
are essentially answerable to no one! As these peers and Bishops tend to be
conservative, it creates a cadre of Lords and Bishops essentially antithetical
to the Scottish Labour/Liberal tradition.
Much of Westminster's legislation is viewed
by Scots as being passed by Englanders to solve English problems with everyone's
money. What night have forestalled this crisis is meaningful reform of the
system. While there have been numerous proposals from 1969 to the present to
reform the House of Lords; as recently as 2012, such a measure was dropped, the
committee reporting that those surveyed (who were 'they"?) believed there
were more important national issues. Well, it's two years later and there may
be no more important issue in the foreseeable
future than the upcoming vote. It seems to me that just as England lost her
American colonies by mismanagement by incompetent government, history may well repeat
itself. Hopefully if it happens, both parties will survive, but overshadowing
events is the nagging feeling that it should never have come to
this. I fear if disunion takes place, both Britain and Scotland will be the worse
for it.
