Corruption, bribery, religious concessions and misreading the mood of monarchy all played their parts. In short, most of the Scottish Parliament were 'nobbled'.
The leader of the anti-Union 'Country Party' was James, 4th Duke of Hamilton. In late September 1705, he waited until most of the Scottish members of parliament had gone home for the day, before he made a startling proposal.
Hamilton opined that there were too many feuds and wrangling amongst the Scottish peers. They should allow their queen to decide who would negotiate the terms of union with England.
Queen Anne - who had only briefly been to Scotland once as a child, spoke just about England at her coronation and referred to Scotland during her reign only in terms of safeguarding the security of England - was thoroughly delighted to be asked to nominate the Scottish committee. She filled it with pro-union peers.
Hamilton had utterly misjudged his monarch's 'neutrality' in Scottish affairs.
With the Union debate thus so heavily loaded to favor English interests, it's hardly surprising that the will of the Scottish people barely penetrated parliament. Yet ensuring that the votes came in with the right answer was an enterprise run like a Mafia operation.
Large sums of money passed hands. A decade before, the disastrous Darien Scheme had left many wealthy Scottish families substantially poorer. Suddenly the Bank of England began paying out 'compensation', but with a blatant political bias. An avowed 'yes' vote made a member of parliament eligible to claim.
John Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll was given £20,000 from the English treasury, to pass out as 'payments for arrears of salary' to those peers willing to vote for the union. He kept most of it himself, while also accepting many other 'lavish (material) rewards'. In addition, Argyll managed to wrangle two English peerages (Baron Chatham and Earl of Greenwich) for himself, and a Scottish peerage (Lord of Islay) for his younger brother.
Other members of the Scottish Parliament were also able to trade their acquiescence for personal gain and promotions at the court of their queen.
Right up until the eve of the vote, the Duke of Hamilton remained outspoken in his opposition to the union. But on the day, he didn't turn up, citing toothache.
In the aftermath, his cripplingly high debts mysteriously disappeared into the ether. He was also suddenly awarded two English peerages - Duke of Brandon (with estates in Suffolk) and Baron Dutton of Cheshire. Queen Anne knighted him in the Order of the Garter, and the new British Parliament made him ambassador to Paris.
Meanwhile, the Duke of Queensberry - who was credited by the monarch as orchestrating the whole union, with his ability to find the pressure points of peers, and press - was made Duke of Dover. He was awarded £3,000 a year, for the rest of his life, paid for by the English Post Office.
It wasn't all bribery and corruption of the monetary sense though. Some inducements played for hearts and minds.
Presbyterian Kirks fell silent in their opposition after the Act of the Security of the Church in Scotland was placed before the house. Safe-guarded from post-union religious interference, the clergy stopped issuing sermons against it.
On January 16th 1707, the Scottish Parliament ratified the Union with England Act by a majority of just forty-three. It was formally dissolved on April 28th, ahead of the signing of the Act of Union on May 1st 1707.
Comments
Joyce FraserSep 17, 2016
frankbeswickAug 26, 2016
J R TomlinAug 26, 2016
Gavin AlexanderMay 30, 2016
frankbeswickDec 24, 2015
frankbeswickDec 24, 2015
The burden of my comment is that the two nations should work together to forge a common future in a spirit of friendship and respect. As an Englishman, David, I respect the Scots' need for self-governance, but I want it to be in a strong political union with an England friendly to Scotland and its other neighbours.
I speak as an Englishman who is half Irish, and it is my ability to accept a multiple identity rather than to exclusively define myself as only English that gives me hope that the future of these islands will be when we can all accept that we are all British. We should respect each other's heroes. I respect William Wallace as a great hero, even though he would have been no friend of mine.
DavidMacGilleMhuireDec 24, 2015
DarrenOct 26, 2015
Sandy AllanOct 25, 2015
JoHarringtonMar 4, 2014
I say 'blatantly', because the entire Isles contains that Celtic undercurrent.
Yes, the Culloden thing didn't make me happy either. Some blarb about it: http://www.bubblews.com/news/2486310-protesters-take-to-culloden-battlefield-to-oppose-housing-plans-near-to-the-site
frankbeswickMar 4, 2014
I did not know of the proposal to establish a housing estate nigh unto Culloden. I would not want that, and you may infer my reasons why. Some sites are sacred. And painful.
JoHarringtonMar 3, 2014
There's still resistance though. Try telling a Lancastrian that he sounds like a bloke from Yorkshire. Try suggesting that Black Country folk are practically Brummies. And you take your life in your hands mistaking a Scouser and a Mancunian. Populations might mix, but the regional loyalties remain strong, even as our culture merges into the same.
As for the Scottish migrants into England, you're right. Previously it was the Irish who came in larger numbers. The Poles may just have leapt ahead now. But the jobs were in the south. That says more about where the economical heart of the UK has been positioned than anything else.
Plus large areas of Scotland were turned into a desert after the Clearances etc. That's where the likes of Donald Trump now move in, buying up massive parcels of land to become an absentee landlord. There's a company from London currently trying to develop houses on land that they snapped up next to Culloden.
JoHarringtonMar 3, 2014
frankbeswickMar 2, 2014
A second trend is for borders and political entities to become less significant and be absorbed into a larger political reality. Take an example. An ex-international border between Northumbria and Mercia runs a mile from my house. Twelve hundred years ago my predecessors in this town would have been on the look out for Mercian raids, now we get on the tram and cross the border that most locals do not know existed, and the two distinct political entities are little more than memories.
EmberMar 2, 2014
Frank- I guess that's what I was asking about, are they really better off together? Or is Scotland potentially better off economically having their independence.
JoHarringtonMar 1, 2014
I did smile when you asked about the healthcare system, but I'm just the same. I have my main concern too, which is the history. To me, the referendum is an historical event, part of an ongoing story, which I can trace back centuries.
I'm much less interested in the political promises being thrown from both sides of the divide, than I am in the historical precedents. Mainly because the former always fade into nothingness, once elections are called, while the latter is verifiable fact. And perhaps the job of historians is to extrapolate the past into projecting the future.
But in answer to your question, the NHS is already protected by the Scottish Parliament. They have the power to decide what happens to it in Scotland, and it will continue as now. (Incidentally, the Scots don't have to pay for prescriptions. The rest of the UK does.)
As for the switchover, that wouldn't actually happen immediately. I think I read somewhere that it would take several months. But many departments, and businesses, have contingency plans in place.
frankbeswickMar 1, 2014
I come to the issue from two standpoints. Firstly, I am philosophically anti-nationalist of any kind. So I am at least as opposed to English nationalists as I am to Scots nationalists, and I cannot stand the United Kingdom Independence Party, who want to split us from Europe. Secondly, I love the United Kingdom, all its parts [and the neighbouring country, Ireland.] I don't want a country that I love to break up. In effect, I love mycountry but want it to be part of a much wider network, an extended family that includes the world.
EmberMar 1, 2014
I do wonder what Independence would mean for Scotland beyond the idea of "independence." I see you referenced in the comments that roadwork in London was funded, essentially, by Scotland. But it just makes me wonder how the government might end up getting set up, what the income of the now separate nation will mean for them if the vote goes through, from things such as currency, to establishing their own health care system now that they'll be separate from the NHS (ok, honestly that's the main bit I'm interested in right there), will the new government be able to support it's citizens who rely on welfare on it's own? Or perhaps be better at meeting the needs of citizens than they are via the UK?
I'm not a government person by any means, but this is fascinating to me. Would the switch over be immediate then? That just seems like they'd either have to be incredible prepared beforhand or like it'd be a really intense few months. I wonder what implementing huge portions of government all at once would really look like. The answers to this may be a lot simpler than I'm imagining, but I am curious about it.
The vote is happening this summer, right?
JoHarringtonFeb 27, 2014
It can be frightening how London-centric the British Isles really is. Particularly for the bulk of us who are nowhere near it.
frankbeswickFeb 27, 2014
Much of the plundering has been done within nations, and the same for the violence. The highland clearances were a disgrace, but they were done by Scots [abetted by English manufacturers], as was much of the bloodshed in Scotland. But similarly in England the commons were enclosed by English masters against English people.
There is a real problem in the British Isles that the centre of economic gravity of the whole archipelago is the South East of England, but it is economic pressures that cause this to happen. If Scotland breaks free, this pressure will not go away, London will still be economically dominant. I write this as a northern Englishman with kith and kin connections to the Celtic fringes of Wales and the far West of Ireland
JoHarringtonFeb 27, 2014
All I know is that historically Scotland's wealth has poured into Westminster and it has largely been used to benefit interests south of the border.
17th century foreign policy (as enacted by the Stuarts and the Commonwealth) pushed English interests at the detriment of Scottish - wars with the Dutch, when they were Scotland's main trading partners, and French embargos, when they were also a good trade source for the Scots. The Highland Clearances were carried out by absentee landlords - clan chieftains - who'd taken up estates in England. The oil financed the M25. Just three examples spanning four centuries.
frankbeswickFeb 26, 2014
frankbeswickFeb 26, 2014
l do not think that the UK should veto an independent Scotland's accession, but it is fair to point out that Scotland will have to apply to join the EC, and some states, for example Spain, might use the veto. It is not bullying to point out that if Scotland joins the Schwengen agreement, as it will have to if it joins the EU, there will have to be passport controls at the border.
I think that people north of the border must see that Salmond's threat not to take up Scotland's share of debt has gone down badly in the rest of the UK.
JoHarringtonFeb 26, 2014
It's almost certainly the historian in me, but I look to the past for clues to the present and future. All I see is centuries of England taking all it possibly can from Scotland. Even more recently, the first oil revenue paid for the M25 around London. How did that help Scotland?
You'll not get the neutral facts until this referendum is over. But history provides the answers.
AlexandriaInghamFeb 26, 2014
Living in Scotland, we're still to hear all the pros and cons. There's a lot of bullying from Westminster and a lot of talk but no evidence from Holyrood, but nothing concrete to convince many that independence is the way to go.
JoHarringtonFeb 24, 2014
I remember your country becoming independent. It was both horrifying and exhilarating to see play out on our news night after night. I can't imagine what it must have been like to live through.
TolovajFeb 24, 2014