Letters II: Nobility signed Treaty of Union against the wishes of the people

October 25) I am sorry to note that he has omitted several occurrences “at home” which I feel were more consequential to the outcome of the Treaty of Union than the English war with France, in which Scotland wasn’t really involved.

In 1702,William of Orange died and was succeeded by his sister in law, Queen Anne. James Edward Stuart (James VIII) was, at that time, the legal King of Scotland following his father’s death in 1701.

And, since Scotland was still a separate country they would have been perfectly entitled to crown him King of Scotland.

Because James Edward was Catholic, as opposed to the English Protestant monarchy, the English Government and Crown wanted to prevent this and started propositions to form a Union between the two countries.

Such a Union would effectively prevent the presence of a separate Scottish King since Scotland, within the Union, would have to accept the existing, (English) Queen.

England had passed the Act of Settlement following James VII’s death to ensure that upon Queen Anne’s death the crown would not go to James VIII but would pass to the German Princess Sophie the Protestant Electress of Hanover.

Scotland responded in 1704 with the Act of Security (which Alan Clayton mentions). This Act stated that: “Only the Scottish Government had the right to appoint the King of Scots.”

Queen Anne refused to accept that and brought in the Alien Act the following year, (1705).

It stated that all Scottish estates in England were to be forfeit unless: 1) The Scottish Act was repealed by the end of 1705; 2) The English Hanoverian line of succession was accepted; and 3) Moves to form a union with England were started.

The forfeiture of their English estates would have been a considerable loss to the Scots nobles. Queen Anne also bribed the Scottish nobility by offering to repay to them any monies they had lost in the Darien Scheme if they would agree to and sign the Treaty of Union.

Ninety petitions were sent to the Scottish Parliament from Scottish shires, burghs and presbyteries urging the rejection of the Treaty.

Not a single petition in favour was received. The Duke of Atholl, who was against the Treaty, stated: “There is not one address from any party of this kingdom in favour of this Union.”

There are records of riots taking place in Glasgow in November 1706 when the Tolbooth was stormed and it appeared that a national riot might break out.

In 1707, the “Edinburgh Mob” stormed the Parliament Hall in Edinburgh and drove the nobles out of Parliament house and then out of St Giles when they tried to sign it there.

But the Scottish nobility ignored the wishes of the Scottish people, succumbed to the bribery of the English and signed the Treaty. Lord Belhaven said of it, “Good God! What is this, an entire surrender”.

Lockhart of Carnwath said: “The Union was crammed down Scotland’s throat.”

It seems that in the intervening years the Westminster Government has continued to cram its wishes down Scotland’s throat.

Indeed, its attitude and actions towards Scotland in relation to Brexit, which is entirely against the wishes of the Scottish people, is merely an extension of what their attitude has been throughout the Union.

CJ Kerr, Glenrothes

HOW many of your correspondents who are against independent Scotland remaining in the EU have any real experience of other member countries?

Having lived, worked and/or studied in France, Germany and Italy, and to a lesser extent Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands,

I found them to be generally comfortable within the EU.

Unlike the UK, they get on with participating cooperatively and positively and do not treat each other and the Union as replacement colonies. As has been said many times, UK politicians and bureaucrats feel the need to justify their existence by being contrary and by adding bells and whistles to EU regulations, with “Brussels” often blamed for the results.  

Can we really afford to be outside the second largest trading group in the world? The EU is not perfect, but it will always have an effect on us, and from the outside we will never be able to improve it. Yes, I know about Greece, but its undeserved entry was aided and abetted by the same bankers who caused global catastrophe, for which the Greeks, and the rest of us apart from (thanks to Cameron), the bankers will pay for for a long time to come.

Jim Clark, Address supplied

AFTER Dylann Roof shot and killed 10 black worshippers at a church in South Carolina, there was a backlash against the Confederate flag. It was rightly seen as a symbol of white supremacy and slavery. The massacre prompted debate about the legacy of the Confederate flag and problems of racism today.

The Union Jack has a much bloodier history, yet no debate has every taken place as to its legacy of white supremacy, slavery, genocide.

The first documented use of biological weapons happened when in 1763 when the commander of British forces in North America, Jeffrey Amherst, gave blankets infected with smallpox to Native American tribes for the express purpose of wiping them out.

The so-called Black War fought in the 1820s between British colonists and Aboriginal Australians in Tasmania led to the total wiping out of the Aboriginal population in Australia. This was a feat unmatched by the dictators of the 20th century.

In the late 19th century millions of Indians starved to death when Lord Lytton, the colonial governor, insisted food should be exported back to Britain in order not to distort the market. During the Second World War, the Bengal famine caused three million more Indians to starve to death, as a direct result of decisions taken by “greatest Briton of all time” Winston Churchill. In the 1950s, 100,000 Mau Mau were killed while resisting British rule in Kenya

British Unionism selects its history from a selection of topics and is entwined with a  reactionary outlook, a  conviction that the present economic order is basically just and political power is a prerogative exercised by the privileged few.

From this contented perspective, history is a repository of dead facts out of which can be constructed a nationalist tableau, comprising heroic statesmen, generals, and benevolent imperialists. It is this level of self-delusion on the true nature of the Empire that continues to paint the Union flag as something to be proud of. The honours system is also a celebration of the Empire while ignoring its bloody legacy.

Alan Hinnrichs, Dundee

THE UK media has recently echoed to the eerie sound of whistling in the dark as distraught Unionists desperately try to bolster each other’s draining confidence in the good ship UK. Apologists wave a tsunami of statistics at us in a vain attempt to pretend the shipwrecked vessel, doomed by the scuttling of the EU single market by a band of ruthless pirates called the Brexiteer, will survive unscathed.

Tragically, they have been supported by many well-intentioned people who thought that they were sailing towards a better life for themselves and their children.

The pirates fooled many, including a naive parson’s daughter who was dazzled by the offer of a place on the bridge and a pair of kitten-heeled ruby slippers. Alas, she discovered too late that when she clicked her heels and uttered the magic words ‘’Brexit means Brexit’’ the calamities visited upon her people only increased tenfold .

James Mills, Johnstone