History seldom repeats itself but patterns of human behaviour do; and they inform relationships of every sort.
Chancellor George Osborne has ruled out any possibility of an independent Scotland sharing a common currency with the rest of the UK. Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, and Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander align themselves with his stance.
What are the three parties hoping to achieve and are they likely to be successful? In different times but in curiously similar circumstances, the English parliament passed the Alien Act, which received the royal assent in March 1705. It declared that, if Scotland, then an independent country with a shared monarchy and her own parliament, did not agree to negotiate terms for a closer union, or to accept the Hanoverian succession to the throne, which had been enacted by the English parliament in 1701, then by Christmas Day 1705 Scotsmen would be treated as aliens.
The threat was to destroy Scotland's trade with England in cattle, coal and linen and to affect adversely the inheritance rights of families with estates in England. The Jacobite George Lockhart of Carnwath reacted strongly:-
"This was a strange preamble and introduction towards an agreement. First, to propose an amicable treaty to remove grudges and animosities betwixt the two nations: but at the same time threaten the Scots with their power and vengeance, if they did not comply with what was demanded of them."
Even Daniel Defoe, employed at the time as a Westminster Government agent, referred to it as "an act ... the most impolitic, I had almost said unjust, that ever passed that great assembly."
Both Defoe and Lockhart realised that valid political decisions must be made freely, not through coercion or blackmail. Threats of economic sanctions do not sit well with protestations of friendship. In 1705 England was anxious to secure a closer or incorporating union to prevent a restoration of the Catholic Stewart line and to safeguard her security in her war against France.
The Scottish parliament had demonstrated a worrying independence of mind and had enacted its right to choose a successor to the Scottish throne, to impose conditions on any shared monarchy, and to give or withhold its consent to any war, treaty or alliance. Alarm bells were ringing at Court, and ministers embarked on a hardline policy to compel Scotland to accept full union and a monarch chosen by the English Parliament.
Did the plan work? In some ways it did for, in some five months, on September 1, 1705, the Scottish Parliament agreed to appoint a commission to negotiate for union. On the same day, the Duke of Hamilton, hitherto regarded as a strong opponent of union, proposed that the nomination of the Scottish commissioners should be by Queen Anne. A hasty vote was held and the motion carried by four votes. Thirty of the 31 Scots subsequently chosen by the Queen were Unionists. The inexorable drift to full Union began.
There were many other factors at work and many other defining events in the crucial autumn months of 1705. But the Alien Act sufficiently frightened the nobility (who held the great offices of state) to enlist the support of most for union. Yet Lockhart's anger was shared by the Scottish Parliament. Even at its most supine it demanded repeal of the Act prior to union negotiations. A few weeks later, recognising the strength of feeling, the English Parliament rescinded the Act.
What of today? The Westminster Government has chosen once more to use confrontation over the economy as a method of binding Scots to the Union. Yet decisions about the future of Scotland are to be made by its people. Whether the leaders of the Westminster parties in Scotland will articulate anything of the anger widely expressed by Scottish MPs of every hue in 1705 remains to be seen. And whether the Scots who claim to be "proud Scots and proud Britons" can continue to do so with conviction may yet prove to be the turning point in the referendum campaign.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article