120 likes | 399 Views
The Act of Union, 1707. Gabriel Glickman. Problems of composite monarchies. Danger of one component part being wealthier and more powerful than others – question of how impartially a monarch would rule. Dominance of England in British Isles, Castile in Spanish monarchy.
E N D
The Act of Union, 1707 Gabriel Glickman
Problems of composite monarchies • Danger of one component part being wealthier and more powerful than others – question of how impartially a monarch would rule. • Dominance of England in British Isles, Castile in Spanish monarchy. • Concern of James VI – why he sought a more ‘perfect union’ in 1603.
Darien and the Union • Leaves Scotland humiliated and indebted but does not make union inevitable. • All schemes for union had failed in C17th – e.g. plans in 1669 and 1689. • Opposition as much in English as Scottish parliament. • Widening differences over C17th – law, politics, religion.
Union shaped by impact of European succession contests • Uncertainty over the British succession – house of Hanover vs exiled house of Stuart. • Conflict over the Spanish Succession – Bourbon (pro-French) vs Habsburg candidates backed by England, Netherlands, Austria. • 1701 – beginning of War of the Spanish Succession. • Danger of French ‘universal monarchy’ has raised schemes for unions and confederacies between states across Europe.
Scotland after 1689 • Revolution settlement (1689) reflects push for greater independence – foreshadows Darien scheme. • Domination of parliament by radical Presbyterians. • Episcopalians traditionally more pro-English, but alienated by 1688 Revolution – turn towards Jacobitism. • Conflict over the Revolution underpinned by religious antagonism 1689-1692. • Council of Scotland (appointed by William III) weak and prone to factionalism and feuding .
Impact of Darien • Economic crisis. • Exposes limitations on Scottish sovereignty when king is based in England and rules according to English interests. • Country Party (Fletcher, Belhaven) formed in Edinburgh Parliament – call upon Scots to ‘assert our rights as a free people’). • But alternative conclusion voiced by Seton of Pitmedden – Scotland can never stand alone: needs an incorporating union with England.
1703-5- Bid for greater independence in Edinburgh Parliament • Exploitation of English weaknesses due to dynastic instability and War of the Spanish Succession. • Attempt to establish sovereign commercial and diplomatic policies. • Demand right to settle Scottish royal succession independently. • But not seeking total independence of England – Fletcher proposes confederal union as alternative to incorporating union.
The English ministers and the push for Union 1705-6 • Fear that Scots are undermining war effort and acting under Jacobite influence. • English ministers meet with Scots commissioners but reject all solutions other than incorporating union. • Queensberry and Seafield accept inevitability of union on English terms – aim instead for concessions. • Scots to get compensation for Darien, free trade with England and Empire, retention of separate church and legal system.
1706-7 – the Union debate • Emotive opposition in Scots Parliament led by Country Party. • Widespread extra-parliamentary opposition. • Ratification of union provokes riots and protests esp. in key urban centres in the Lowlands. • Three-quarters of Scots believed to be opposed to union. • Opposition rises over following five years due to failure of Union to deliver economic gains.
A divided opposition • Conflict among the opponents of Union the key reason why it was able to survive. • Presbyterian opposition reflects radical separatist traditions of C17th Covenanters. • Contrast with Episcopalian opposition – Union opposed because it keeps the Church in Presbyterian form and keeps out the Jacobites. • Anti-Unionism increasingly led by Episcopalian Jacobites. • Less likely therefore that Presbyterians will support separatist cause.
Conclusion • Union able to endure because: • Scotland a divided country – Presbyterians would choose Union over Jacobite Episcopalian form of independence. • Union of concessions (church, law) – less ambitious than goals of James VI in 1603. • Union to fulfil pragmatic ends (serve the war effort, secure the Hanoverian succession) – not to create a new nation.