To our English brother
We’re enormously grateful to the alert reader who uncovered this little gem. “The Claim Of Scotland” is a book published in 1968 and written by one Herbert James Paton, a philosopher and a senior civil servant at the Admiralty and Foreign Office, who sadly died the following year.
If you click the image above, you’ll find a scanned PDF of the foreword, contents and first chapter, which at just 14 pages is a modest task of reading. Prepare yourself to marvel at how little times have changed since this pre-North Sea oil age, and to smile ruefully at a few of the sentences you’ll encounter.
“The representative of the Conservative Party went so far as to say that ‘if the people of Scotland were ultimately to decide in favour of a Scottish Parliament, no one could gainsay them’. But he was as anxious as the Labour Party to make sure that no opportunity for such a decision could be given.”
We hope to bring you some more chapters soon.
What’s that phrase “the more things change ,the more they stay the same.”
Just started reading it, but right away, pertinent stuff, page 2 of the foreword:
‘Politicians concerned with Scotland are almost nationalistic when they are out of office: when they form a government they become obstinately and even blindly unionist.’
@ rod mac
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose
Large scale dishonesty is not a Scottish vice
What has happened in the intervening years? It is now
An absolute gem of a find. But for the style and language it could almost have been written last week let alone in the 1960s.
In the first chapter where they talk about double loyalty for the Scot etc, where the Scot is loyal to Scotland and to Britain, but then he realises that for the Englishman Britain is England; it does remind me of a point Iv’e made on several blogs and newspaper comment pages.
Those unionists in Scotland who have been trying so hard to show their Britishness might find they are not British enough for the ‘real’ British in the Westminster and middle England establishment.
Because they are after all just Scots or Irish or Welsh. In the past these types were the Factors, looking after the properties for the absentee landlords, in Scotland and Ireland.
It makes me very aware that I will be voting Yes for Scotland’s people and Yes for all that is best about Britain. I don’t think that a National Health Service, a Social Security system etc etc are the preserve of any one part of the UK – but we who choose to live in Scotland have the opportunity to build upon these, and be a nation again xx.
More more please! Incredible how little has changed.
Superb stuff. Something about the man’s style is very reminiscent of Orwell in essay-mode.
@mato21 – yep, ‘Large scale dishonesty is not a Scottish vice.‘ (page 25) really jumps out, and perhaps helps explain the current state of SLAB.
Another gem:
‘If the English do not want a Parliament of their own, why should this stand in the way of peoples who do?‘ (page 29)
Brilliant. Looking forward to more.
According to Tony Benn ‘Prince Philip supported Independence for Scotland in 1968’.
The Diaries.
This is a useful find. I was very surprised recently in speaking to a friend of mine who’d moved here from the States 20-odd years ago (and is therefore entitled to vote), that he thought this independence thing was quite recent in origin. That it had started in 2007 or something.
In fact these same discussions were going on as long ago as the inter-war years, and long before that. It might be worth laying some emphasis on this – it obviously doesn’t get much coverage in the schools, for example. (Or in the Scottish Sun’s History Page.)
Well done.
@ Ian Brotherhood
Where’s about is McGill’s in Glasgow. If possible? might try to make it.
If the venue is changed, please give details.
I was particularly tickled by the following on p32;
‘Even an opponent of Home Rule like Professor A.C Turner of Toronto – in his book Scottish Home Rule -says there seems to be little doubt that Scotland is better prepared to support itself than England’
Turner’s book Scottish Home Rule was published in 1952. A look at that may prove interesting if anyone can track a copy down.
The Home Rule/Independence for Scotland campaign started in 1934. Universal suffrage 1928. The Campaign started as soon as the vote was achieved.
I have downloaded this to read later tonight. Meanwhile I extracted a paragraph form an American publication which shows natives are restless where they suffer injustice.
In this case it is where concerns Louisiana wanting to break away and form a new state, as do 5 areas of DAKOTA.
“In short, the essence of secession today is all about the need to replace big government with a smaller facsimile that addresses the parochial needs of those who feel disenfranchised by the existing, failing system.”
“Why should the 29,200 residents of those five counties pay taxes to and align themselves with a state that does not represent their values and interests — in fact, a state that forces upon them values they find abhorrent and which threaten their local economy? And don’t say they have the freedom to uproot and find somewhere more conducive to their beliefs. While that might be true, it’s just as true that they have the freedom to breakaway and form North Colorado if that best fits their needs.”
It seems there is discord everywhere, when the state is failing to meet the expectations of the population.
Rev I thought this was interesting as is their reasons.
@Ken500 –
It’s called McGinn’s, named after Matt McGinn, is owned by his nephew, Paul, and is here:
link to oldglasgowpubs.co.uk
There are a few copies of Paton’s book about, on Amazon and ABE etc. Have just ordered one! Thanks for the head’s up, on this. lots of good arguments and ammo foir YESSERS!
“To refute triumphantly a position your opponents do not hold is one of the less honourable ways of conducting a political arguement”
Sounds familiar,indeed,some things haven’t changed at all it seems. I think there must be a secret handbook about how to combat Independence,looks like the same one has been used for years.
Thank you Stu for this excellent document.
I’ve been looking for a book of Scottish history that wasn’t written by a unionist. Just tried reading “Lion in the North” by John Prebble. Very negative towards Scotland. Does anyone know if the Michael Lynch “A New History” book is any good?
I meant to add that there is also Owen Dudley Edwards (ed) A Claim of Right for Scotland, which is worth a look. And R B Cunningham Graham too often gets left out also.
Brilliant find, Rev. In a similar vein, I’ve been reading the Omni-Future Almanac, which has a very interesting piece on Scotland: published in 1982, it accurately predicted a Scottish Parliament would be likely before the year 2000, as well as various eerily close predictions regarding Scottish identity. I’ll see if I can dig it up.
Well done the reader who found this book. A great read. I see there is mention of the BBC in later chapters …
I was given John MacCormick’s book “The flag in the wind” and I was struck on how the same arguments are repeated generation to generation. It has an appendix on the proposals for home rule in the 1950’s as part of the Scottish Conventions proposals which was signed by nearly 2 million Scots and could be described in modern terms as ‘devo max’. 70 years later Scotland is still waiting for “Jam tomorrow”. Interesting to note that MacCormick and the Scottish Convention, although being proponents of home rule and not independence, were considered, and considered themselves, nationalists.
Thank you Stu.
Ordered 1 from Amazon
Its a Unionist changer this Document.
Every Scot should have a wee Blue Book !!!
REspect A.J
“Every Scot should have a wee Blue Book”
It’s funny you should say that…
Gruts, the Lynch book is riddled with errors. I used him in an essay and lost marks and he was my Emeritus Proffesor in 1st year at uni.
Try anything by Devine or the two books by T.C.Smout.
But he was as anxious as the Labour Party to make sure that no opportunity for such a decision [e.g. independence referendum] could be given.
Because it will give a Yes simply because Scotland is Scottish. The same reason pretty much every other country exists.
I feel something worth reading is about to be available Reverend Stu……….
I too have ordered a copy from Amazon. It surprised me to see so many sellers located in the USA. Curious eh ?
@ Rick Guthrie
Me too. Only 2 left at a reasonable price.
“The Home Rule/Independence for Scotland campaign started in 1934. Universal suffrage 1928. The Campaign started as soon as the vote was achieved.”
So the inclusion of Home Rule in Liberal and Labour manifestos for decades before that was only motivated by political largesse?
How about a fundraiser for a digital reprint sponsored by Wingslanders ?
O/T
Sorry Braco, I had to go back to the Alfetta.
GrutsForTea,I have read about half mr Lynchs’ book,its ok,but can be heavy going. I also read Rbert the Bruce,king of scots,by Agnes Mure Mackenzie and enjoyed it,also Nigel Tranters’ history.
link to amazon.co.uk
link to amazon.co.uk
Very readable, and full of stuff that could have been written yesterday.
“Gruts, the Lynch book is riddled with errors. I used him in an essay and lost marks and he was my Emeritus Proffesor in 1st year at uni.
Try anything by Devine or the two books by T.C.Smout.”
History is in the eye of the purse holder. A generic whimsy.
Facts are Chiels that winna ding.
But Historians can mak thim spin.
GrutsForTea, go for James Halliday’s book.
link to amazon.co.uk
There are several reasonably-priced second-hand copies, as well as some idiots asking silly money. I bought my copy new in a bookshop in Glasgow in 1992.
Absolutely ****ing brilliant. There is no other way to describe it.
Wow.Prescient or what.Because of Cameron’s insistence that the referendum must be an unequivocal In/Out of the English Union what alternative do we have?
@ Ian Brotherhood 3 January, 2014 9.15pm
Thanks : – }
I got one from Amazon as well, I hope they have not sold the same book over several times!!!
It is joy to read such beautifully crafted prose. The dissection of the issues is also very well done.
The first serious group to campaign for Independence happened in 1928 when the National Party of Scotland was formed by left wing Home Rulers. In 1929 was when they put up a candidate in a by-election.
I have been given copies of some 1930’s leaflets from other nationalist groups and I will email some of these to the Rev when I return home in 2 weeks time. They are a good read and some of the points in their leaflets are current today.
link to en.wikipedia.org
@GrutsForTea at 9.31
I’m no historian, so take this with a pinch of salt.
Agreed – Prebble is weird – better avoided.
Michael Lynch’s Scotland: a new history is solid, maybe a bit dated now, and maybe a bit prejudiced against Presbyterianism if you’re interested in the religious side.
The best one-volume history for the period 1700-2000 is probably T.M. Devine’s The Scottish nation (Penguin, 1999) – very well informed, mainstream, balanced on the national question.
Then there’s Christopher Harvie’s Scotland: a short history (Oxford U.P., 2002). Harvie used to be an SNP MSP, so his politics are obvious, but his writing sometimes resembles that of a grasshopper on acid, so he may not suit all tastes.
Hope this is some help.
There are a few ‘Claim of Scotland’ for sale on eBay £14/£15 and free postage.
I will order the book as well, it certainly shows the Westminster mind set, then and now.
Chic..LOL
Morag…Good call.
If you want good Scottish history, stay away from Prebble and Tranter. I would also recommend David Stephenson. He wrote a great book about Rob Roy, but an even better one about the relationship between Montrose and MacDonald ( son of Macolla) called Highland Warrior.
See McGinns?
s it not more obviously signed as “The Twoa heided Man” with a double headed bearded man graphic?
Two Heided Man
The last major (as in popularly acclaimed) work before the neo-revisionism of recent decades which began, ‘coincidentally’, a few years after the great independence scare of the 70s was a serialisation on CH 4 called ‘Scotland’s Story’ with an accompanying book by Tom Steel.
Of course, under the currently agendised ‘perceived wisdom’, this is now assessed as being a ‘romantic’ view if not ‘nationalist’, however I have with my own researches, found it to be more factually accurate than most. I think it is still in print, although, given the televisual layman nature of it (not quite as ‘layman’ as would be normal for the dummed down times of today’s television) it is still a useful first read for those who want an introduction to Scottish history without the post-modern deconstruction.
Brotyboy,
did you think I wouldn’t notice? My first disappointment of 2014, but don’t worry min, it was real nice while it lasted.
vivaLancia! (and Alfa, if you must!)
Happy New Year Pal.
O/T
HeartwarmingmessagejustreceivedfromfromColinandAlex(AlexandraPaterson)LeggetofTexasandArkansaswhowemetattheCowalGames.WishallScotsweresosensible.
“Lookslikewearegettingallofthesnowandicethaty’allaren’t–it’sbeenprettywinteryhere!Andbeingfromthesouth,Idon’thandlethecoldverywell.Iwilldefinitelybefollowingtheblogs,wethinkabouttheYesmovementoftenandScotlandingeneral–itquicklybecameourfavoriteplace!IfatallpossiblewewillbethereinAugustandSeptember.DoesBritainhavealotofinfluenceovertheScottishpeople?It’shardtoimagineanyscotsnotwantingindependence?Icouldbenaive,butIfeellikebreakingawayfromtheUKwouldbeano-brainer!”
@ Les Wilson:
The occasional secession “movements” in Colorado, California and other states have very little in common with Scotland’s referendum. The “North Colorado” endeavor in particular resulted from conservatives in rural counties who hate the state’s policies on gun ownership and fracking.
This Daily Kos post may help clarify that situation:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/20/1232574/–North-Colorado-to-secede
The “North Colorado” effort, which had no chance of success, failed:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/06/1253624/–Here-s-how-badly-Colorado-s-secession-movement-failed
The World Depression 1933
Scottish Unionists, in Scotland, can hold Doctorates in Scottish Medieval History.
English Oxbridge graduate, Political Lecturers in Scotland can despise Thatcher.
Northern English Politics Lecturers in Scotland can be SNP candidates.
Thank you Stu and thanks to the person who shared this. It is a wee gem.
@Chic McGregor.
Just ordered “Scotland’s Story” for 2.79 on eBay. It will be will me early next week.
Thanks for all the book recommendations, really helpful. I’ll probably start with the James Halliday one then explore the other options. Braw!
“Empire speak” at it’s worst. Can’t believe he mentioned the loss of the American Colonies so long after the fact. The mixing and misuse of England/Britain has always been a real bugbear for me.
This reminded me of a very old 1911 (pretty sure) copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica I came across in a self catering croft in Applecross (Culduie, 4 miles south, actually) some years ago. At the very start there was a page that listed the dominions of the British Empire. Or as it was titled: “Dominions of the British Empire: and how each was acquired by England”. Listed under most was “conquest”…hey, that’s what colonialism was about. Listed opposite Scotland?…Union! So, there we have it, we were acquired by England by union!!!!
Calum Craig,
hope Christmas and New Year chit chat went ok for you (wink)!
Here is a snippet from the 1984 TV series, Scotland’s Story. A few of us in the London SNP gathered to watch the first episode which we then dubbed it, ‘Scotland’s Tory’.
the snippet mentions London & North Carolina. Cannot see the a full episode. I think I have the first one on video somewhere.
Nigel Tranter is often described as a historical novelist, rather than a historian.
Diana Gabaldon’ (Canadian) ‘The Scottish Prisoner’ etc, is quite a good read.
“Just ordered “Scotland’s Story” for 2.79 on eBay. It will be will me early next week”
Wow. (note, no !) A bargain.
A great read and so relevant today. Looking forward to more chapters.
@GrutsForTea, try ‘The Scottish Enlightenment’ by Arthur Herman, an American author, who has written an extremely interesting take on Scottish history slanted towards the Scots input to the European Enlightenment movement, and the impact that Scots had on the American constitution amongst other things. A very good read in my humble opinion.
Don’t just take my word for it though, Irvine Welsh says ” Every Scot should read it. Scotland now has the provocative and positive history it deserves.”
Pay particular attention to the sections regarding Scotland leading the way in universal education, far ahead of both England and Europe, and the absolute mastery of the Scottish universities over the then fledgling Oxford and Cambridge, it’s a real eye opener, and a credit to the people at parish level that ran affairs in those days. They weren’t of course perfect, but then again who is? 😉
I would recommend any of our Wings brother and sisters to have a read at this book, you may not agree with everything as outlined, but if you do not have an enhanced sense of the impact that our tiny country has made on the recent history of our planet, you have no soul.
After reading it, you will have a greater understanding of Winston Churchill’s (I know, boo, hiss, Dundee ya twat) quote that – and having had one Bowmore too many – I paraphrase, Scotland has contributed more to the world than anyone except arguably the ancient Greeks.
We’re actually no bad… 😉
@Braco,
I have to confess that I kind of let them avoid the issue… It was the first Christmas since the death of a fairly close family member so the mood was a wee bit sombre.
They are currently on holiday but there is a certain letter waiting for them on their arrival. I’m not expecting any epiphany moments but if I can make some headway to get past the lies they lap up I will be happy.
On history I would agree with Chic and say that Devine or Smout (or both ideally) will provide a very readable history of Scotland. There are many historians that are experts in particular fields but few really weave a coherent story that span the centuries like these two.
The Chinese – ‘Britain is a small nation without Empire and Influence’ (Present day)
Obama – ‘Cameron is a light weight’
The Chinese – ‘Scotland is the Land of Discovery and Invention’.
Did I commit a formatting sin? “Awaiting moderation”…
“Did I commit a formatting sin? “Awaiting moderation”…”
Yes. The worst one of all – a CITE tag.
” ‘The Scottish Enlightenment’ by Arthur Herman, an American author, who has written an extremely interesting take on Scottish history slanted towards the Scots input to the European Enlightenment movement,”
And let’s not forget Herman’s (and he had NO known Scottish ancestry) ‘How Scots Invented The Modern World’.
And he cannot be written off as a solitary Scots obsessed sycophant e.g. “We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilization.” – Voltaire
Lion in the North was one of my favourite books. Prebble’s Highland Clearances was another, but in a different way. Both of them and the good fortune to work on an economic model of Scotland showing we could stand on our own two feet even without the oil brought me to think about Independence in the 70s, and very quickly support it.
No history book should be read in isolation, and none should be taken as fact. Even the best make broad interprestations of limited material including letters, and some of them you can dismiss bits straight away because their conclusions are so stretched. Prebble was brought up in Canda and from his bio born in Middlesex. I guess he settled in Canada amongst groups of Scots moved there via the Clearances hence his interest and perhaps the great difference between his styles and interpretations in different books.
Canada itself is interesting because I guess if you asked people where most of the early disapora went, they’d say New Zealand, Australia, the USA, even India before Canada. yet, though I’ve not seen any figures, I wouldn’t be surprised if proportionately many more went to Canada. Mmm, anyway, that was pretty boring.
I’ll probably get shot, hung to dry and quartered for this but Rev, the new logo is an improvement on last year’s, and continual improvement is what it’s all about.
@Chic –
You once posted an old map of Scotland/Europe. I can’t begin to try and find it, although I know I saved it somewhere.
It was a belter, and I’m sure those who missed it first-time would appreciate seeing it, if it’s to hand.
Calum Craig,
soon everyone, even folk who have up until now been able to avoid the issue, will begin to find themselves interested in the subject. You have placed down your marker early, and sooner or later your previously considered minority preoccupation will become incredibly mainstream and prescient.
I would say your in prime position. Just let time and the political timetable do its inevitable work. Good luck pal, you’re doing the right thing anyway (in my opinion), whichever way they end up voting. This thing is about so much more than just politics.
And remember Kant was a third generation Scot (the first to use a ‘K’ rather than a ‘C’) who had given up on philosophy for science(astronomy) but who was enticed back into it by the works of Hume who he would be no doubt familiar with if only by dint of his Scottish ancestry (on paternal and maternal sides).
Voltaire’s “We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilization” makes Scots feel all warm and gooey inside. But Voltaire had a wicked sense of humour: it’s just possible he was taking the piss here.
Ian Brotherhood,
here’s one of my favourites. Apparently the Roman’s believed their was some sort of northerly limit to human habitation! link to bbc.co.uk
Ian,
I think you mean this map of the North Sea area from a medieval Low Countries perspective which tends to suggest the relative importance of Scotland. We all, of course, should be aware of Wallace’s famous ‘Open for business’ letter and the gift of ‘Mons Meg’, as testament to Scotland’s extensive trading links with that area, but this does rather speak more personally regarding the perception of the time where Scotland was seen, if anything, as being bigger than England. As they say, a picture…
link to i51.photobucket.com
As a result of Scottish trade and connectivity, there were also demonstrable early cultural gains like the technical renaissance improvements in art which began in Italian and Flemish theatres and reached Scotland many decades before a belligerent and isolated England.
Dennis Smith,
yes, that Voltaire comment would have really been considered ironically hilarious during the height of Scotland’s Enlightenment. World class technology, science, education, theology, philosophy, agriculture, medicine, mechanics etc. etc. Yes absolutely laughable!
@Braco
Thanks man, I’ll do my best.
“This thing is about so much more than just politics.”
Exactly!
Project Fear is nothing new.
At page 29: “federalism … the arguments used against it in the case of Scotland are almost too irrelevant to be worth an answer. Thus a favourite contention is that it would mean a customs barrier at the Border.”
@Chic –
Yep. That’s the one. Fascinating. Cheers.
yes, that Voltaire comment would have really been considered ironically hilarious during the height of Scotland’s Enlightenment. Science, education, theology, philosophy, agriculture, medicine, mechanics etc. etc. Yes absolutely laughable!
I’m not knocking the Scottish Enlightenment – far from it. But you have to look at the context. Voltaire made his comment in the course of an unfavourable review of Lord Kames’s Elements of Criticism. Voltaire did not rate Kames and he was by no means an uncritical admirer of all Scottish thinkers.
Excellent read Stu, thanks. Looking forward to any futher chapters you may be able to grace us with.
I particularly noted the variant on your Ghandi quote closely followed by Scotland being “far too small and far too poor” to be independent. When did “too stupid” get added, anyone?
By the way, now I see it on the banner, the new logo looks good.
I have a decent selection of Scottish history and political books. The Claim of Scotland has nestled among them for many years and is an absolute gem. I’ll forbear quoting from it, tempting thought it is, until you have finished with it, Rev.
Another personal favourite, dealing with the cultural fallout from the union, is The Paradox of Scottish Culture by David Daiches. It’s a mere 97 pages long but replete with insight.
I could go on… and on. Perhaps someone should compile a bibliography of books of interest to we independistas.
That ‘ironic’ rebuttal of Voltaire’s quote (and he was by no means the only Frenchman to voice such admiration for the Scots during the Enlightenment) is commonly propounded by our U-‘friends’. However, time constraints press so I will only give the admittedly lazy response of a Wiki quote from the subject ‘Voltaire’ – “In the Scottish Enlightenment, the Scots began developing a uniquely practical branch of humanism to the extent that Voltaire said“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation“.
On topic: Alisdair Gray has a pamphlet why Scots should rule Scotland have bought it twice over the years and read it half a dozen times, and I would wager he would stick a version of it perhaps updated from’98 and online for all to peruse as we approach this seminal decision this year.
One further recommendation from me. For an insight into the mind of the complacent imperialist, please read The Mysterious English (A MacMillan War Pamphlet) by Dorothy L. Sayers. Hilarious and dumbfounding by turn.
Dadsarmy,
the Scottish diaspora in Canada are the third largest ethnic grouping (after English & French respectively) and out of a population of 36 million (approx), around 8 million claim Scottish ancestry.
Oh my goodness, I can’t believe this was written almost 50 years ago! Are you sure it wasn’t written now and just aged with old tea….so many similarities of the debate today! Can’t wait for the next chapters…thank you very much for this!
“Yes. The worst one of all – a CITE tag.”
I am sorry- it was genuinely accidental… The first and last time!
Great to read this, certainly resonates with what we are dealing with at present. Once again I recommend John MacCormick’s, The Flag In The Wind, it is very readable, informative and eye opening, I am on the last few pages, and it all confirms the resistance to Scottish Independence by the unionists, at pretty much any cost.
@Chic McGregor – those are the same book by Hermann – I have it here “The Scottish Enlightenment – The Scots Invention of The Modern World”. I have started it, but not yet able to comment on accuracy.
Christopher Harvie’s Short History of Scotland is quite good.
Iain MacWhirter’s Road To Referendum actually starts with a potted history of Scotland, including all the main points quoted in the debate, which I found useful. It explained a number of things very concisely. He also points out that, at the same time as The Darien Adventure, Scots were colonising Canada, but that never gets mentioned!
I enjoyed The Lion In The North, didn’t find it unionist at all – I’d always defend Prebble. For years his were the only books on Scotland’s history I could find.
I have long complained at the lack of knowledge of Scottish history that blights my generation – I know more about England in 1066 than Scotland. However, one mystery was solved for me just last year. It may be old news to many of you, but: The Stuarts offered to repeal the Act of Union. That was why the Highlanders followed them! Something that never made sense to me finally did! Like I say, most of you probably knew that already!
Thanks ScotsCanuck
Here’s a book I remembered: A History of Scotland J. D. Mackie, there’s a few on abebooks. Can’t remember any more they’re burried somewhere in my attic – I did leave them out on a bookshelf for the kids but, ah well, there you are. Mind you I had no interest in that sort of history until I was in my 20s, more interested in more modern war, ships, planes, even tanks. Lion in the North was my starter for a good few more Scottish.
Yes. The Highlanders cry was “Scotland and no Union” and it was inscribed on lots of their swords. At the same time however Edinburgh had a lot of very dedicated unionists – including David Hume who was annoyed that the powers that be wouldn’t let him be a Englishman
dadsarmy
My mother did history along with her Classics degree in Glasgow University and J.D Mackie’s History of Scotland knocked about our house for years.She was scathing about J D Mackie and his book which she considered anti Scottish. Her father, my grandfather, was a member of the SNP in the thirties and always reported that this best friend at school John Buchan was also a nationalist.
Eh, that Mackie book is on Penguin but as en e-book, Here’s its synopsis:
“A history that is equally entertaining and enlightening, illustrating all of the changes of power and intricacies that are necessary to understand the interrelation between England and Scotland and the Highland and Lowland populations. It shows how Duncan (1034-40) emerged from ‘the union of the four peoples’ as the first king of a united Scotland and provides detailed, reign-by-reign accounts from then on. Above all Professor Mackie reveals how the Scots long pursued an independent line – in religion, law, culture and foreign policy – that helped them keep at bay the Romans, the French and the English. “
Yes, it was difficult to get a history that wasn’t at times at least a bit anti-Scottish, and the other thing is that since it’s the winners write history, even genuine attempts failed. You can kind of get the real story though by thinking through the bias, and that can make it even make it easier getting to a personal view of the truth. Long time since I read them all though.
It’s a bit like the London media. A lot of the time it’s not actually biased, they’re trying their best, but have so much ingrained untruths taught them or stuck firmly into the consciousness that they really think what they’re writing is true. My guess is it’d take 50 years of Scottish Independence before we have a good idea of our own history available easily.
Anyway I’m off to watch some Top Gear, had some annoying conversations the last few days with Scots home from England to visit folks or friends. Misinformation is absolutely unchanged down there, and I need a break before I chew my hands off at the elbows.
Hume and his contemporaries were certainly embarrassed by their Scottishness. Again, MacWhirter covers this in Road To Referendum. Scotland was coming out of the Killing Times; a mini-ice age which had caused harvests to fail, and much else beside. OTOH, the universal education act passed at the end of the 17th Century must have done as much, or more than, the Union, to help Scotland’s development?
Thanks rev, just bought a copy…can’t help thinking of all the wee book shops from all over…waking up tomorrow with all their copies sold out…all delivered back to Scotland…great stuff!
Surprised and pleased to see that from the redoubtable H J Paton.
So, with Lord Cooper, that makes two notable Scottish intellects from the recent past who demur from the notion of parliamentary sovereignty and therefore by implication believe in what LPW and the historian Colin Kidd call the silly myth of Scottish popular sovereignty.
P.s. Voltaire got a tremendous laugh-out-loud kicking from Kames in ‘Elements of Criticism’ and no-one I know has ever been able to find the actual text where Voltaire made the famous comment.
Pps – don’t be looking in Herman for Scottish history. His book is a contribution to American debate on the origins of their constitution.
I think I got the last copy from Amazon. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Stu. And also thanks to the recommendations from others in the comments.
AnneDon
Indeed it was the whole purpose of the Jacobite uprising. With no parliament and no seperate King there was (until now) no way to overturn the treaty of union.
After Culloden many fled through the Highlands to Ireland and from thence to America where they busied themselves stiring up the American independence claim (my ancestors amongst them). So, ultimately, Culloden was a bit of a pyrrhic victory for England.
On topic. I liked the A C Turner quote which a decade earlier says the same as John Jappy found. Even before oil we created more wealth than England.
Lookng forward to further instalments.
Rev, minor error with this article. HJ Paton: 1887 – 1969.
Page 23 – “the English attach more importance to precedents than to principles”
Ain’t that the fucking truth?
This is absolutely superb stuff, and as others have said, it’s amazing how the arguments against independence don’t appear to have changed one bit over the past 50 years.
Just finished reading and started typing. A blockbuster in every sense and, as others have said, much of it could have been written yesterday.
O/T, Scottish enviroment agency helping people on coastal area,s protect their home,s.
England,s enviroment agency, paying of workers, have cut departmental funding, employing Manager,s with no Engineering skills, thank God for whistleblower,s.
Cameron last week talking to home owner,s, the gov will do every thing to help, Owen Patterson enviroment minister, running away from TV interview,s. Thats becomeing a habit now politicions running away from the ELECTORATE.
Thanks for this Rev Stuart. Very, very interesting and a surprisingly easy read for such as me who hate history as a list of dates and monarchs.
I had a search for the book on Amazon and watched the price jump from £9 to £23 in a matter of minutes such was the demand from your readers! Can’t really justify paying that sort of money for a book but I did click the ‘I would like to read this book on my kindle‘ button.
Please, everybody if you search Amazon for this book click the ‘I would like to read this book on my kindle‘ and give more of us the opportunity to acquire an excellent reference work… thank you.
If you can read French, Michel Duchein’s Histoire de l’Ecosse is an interesting book as it tells our story from a French and more continental European perspective. It’s just been updated too and the final chapter about the referendum is fairly neutral although it does say it would be all very disruptive and expensive. Hmm…still interesting and worth a read.
For those of us in Edinburgh, there is a copy of this in the reference library in George IV Bridge, that you’ll be able to read on site.
There are copies around and various second hand book search engines will find them, prices typically £5-£15 depending on condition, some ex-libris.
But the interesting thing is that most copies are overseas, primarily USA as well as Canada and even Sweden. Maybe the owners fled these shores after reading…
So I’ve snapped up one of the locally held copies
Westminster since 1928 , in its meddling in Scottish affairs,is breaking International Law. Westminster is breaking the terms/settlement of the Union Agreement of 1707. Under the terms of the Union Agreement of 1707, Scotland had a right to be a separate country forever. Westminster has broken Interational and broken the Terms of the Union agreement of 1707. If Westminster tries to stop Scotland using the £, or having Queen it is breaking International Law. The EU cannot deny Scotland negotiated EU membership, without breaking International Law.
Westminster/Unionist Parties have been breaking International Law and the agreement under the term of the 1707 Union. Unionist Parties in Westminster have been breaking UK Law in it’s dealing with Scotland. Blair broke International Law by establishing a London Supreme Court to which the Scottish legal system (separate forever) had to appeal. A white elephant with no rights to made decisions under UK Law, The Barnett Formula breaks Internation Law. The establshment of the Scottish Office under Westminster control breaks the terms of the Union of 1707, the terms provided that Scotland had rights of a separate country forever. No subsequent Law coukd ever change that. Westminster breaks International Law since 1928, when Univeral suffrage was introduced.
Westminster has no right to deny Scotland fiscal autonomy, under International Law and to have secretly controlled Scottish finances/taxes. Westminster had no rights under International Law to impose any fiscal settlement in Scotland without the Agreement of the people in Scotland. Ie no taxation, without representation. Westminster had no right to impose a fiscal settlement on Scotland with which a Scottish Parliament, did not agree the terms. The establishment of a Scottish Office controlled by Westminster broke UK Law and the terms of the agreement of the Union of 1707. Carmichael/Darling (lawyers) Unionist Parties are breaking International Law.
Westminster has been breaking International Law and the terms of the 1707 Union agreement which were laid down – forever. Forevef which no Law of a Westminster Parliament (English Law) could change because they did not have the right. Scotland’s has sovereign rights as a separate country. A separate Scottish Parlament should have been established in 1928. Westminster and the Unionist Parties have been acting unlawfully in their dealing with Scottish affairs.
Westminster members break UK and International Law forever. The Westminster Parliament is illegal and ignores UK Law.
Interested people could negotiate to make copy from the Edinburgh Reference Library. Or a publishing company could negotiate to make a reprint of the book, for distribution.
@Rev. Stuart Campbell
Yes. The worst one of all – a CITE tag.
Something similar appears to have happened with a post of mine.
What seem to be happening is that, under certain circumstances, WordPress appears to be embedding codes in the comment but without any indication to the user that it has done so. So the user hits “submit” in all innocence and has no indication that something is borked until the “awaiting moderation” appears.
What they used to call “an additional unspecified feature”.
Dads army
The synopsis of that Mackie book reads a bit dodgy. First of all , any history book that mentions the highlands and lowlands of Scotland out with a geographical perspective , as though they were two distinct nations within a nation is usually founded on ignorance.
Prior to the late 14th , early 15th centuries there was no such a distinction in the minds of the Scottish people.
This distinction became emphasised by the French , then English speaking Scottish elite as a need to single out an area that remained out with their cultural and political control , and led to the modern myth that Scotland always had two distinctive languages when the majority of Scots spoke gaidhlig up till the reformation.
Secondly , our history has many Kings that can be seen as the first leaders of a united Scottish nation.
Bruce had the Scottish monarchy traced back to Cairbre Riada , son of Conaire the second of Munster.
Constantine Mac Beth could be seen as ruling the majority of what is now modern Scotland when Cumbric Strathclyde came under his rule in the 10th century.
You have to understand though this is usually seen from an English cultural viewpoint who never understood the tanist system of electing kings and the de centralised rule of the Celtic countries.
You only have to see how the old provinces of moray and Galloway rose up against Kings like David as he tried to centralise Scotland like Norman England and change the customs of Scotland in line with much of Europe.
Many historians make much of “the divisions” of Scotland in language , customs , and lack of the aforementioned centralisation while glossing over the same divisions in pre Norman England.
Why is Alfred the Great referred to as a famous English king when he barely ruled more than Wessex yet many Scottish kings are pointed out as not ruling the whole of Scotland?
In short , Scotland is painted as a nation of barbarism until the glorious revolution and English civility and manners were introduced from the union.
Final point i will make and in no way critical of you , what union of the four peoples?
While you could argue of a union of the three celtic peoples of Scotland , the small pocket of angles in the far south east were CONQUERED and the Norwegians , who were generally absorbed into Scotland with the exception of the northern isles till much later , barely get a mention despite the fact they controlled more of Scotland and had much more political and cultural influence then the anglians ever did.
On a general note , this lack of historical knowledge in many Scots , encouraged by unionists who are little more than Englishmen in denial ( no offence to the good people of England) who wish to equate Scotland with Yorkshire rather than the equal of England and keep us fed on bullshit and sitting in the dark.
For this reason and many others , this is why a large proportion of the Scottish people cannot accept the Celtic origins of our nation and why unbelievably we have to convince people of a need to reach out and take back our nationhood .
This is despite the fact the first self government bill for Scotland was introduced in the Westminster parliament 300 years ago this year , rather than Scottish independence being the sole construct of that nasty Alec Salmond in recent years.
The members of the Westminster gov are acting illegally, they are acting above the Law of Britain and they are not bringing themselves to justice, enforcing the Law. They are criminals, acting in secrecy, against the rights of the British people they were elected to represent.
Thank you Stuart , another great and extremely interesting article on wings.
Slightly O/T, but the release of 30year old Cabinet papers reveal some interesting bits on Scotland – in particular the spat between between George Younger and Thatcher regarding cutting the Scottish budget and the need to keep such cuts away from public srcutiny.
“Politicians lied!” Hold the front page.
I note for anyone interested that there are two reasonably priced copies of the book still on Amazon here link to amazon.co.uk
Scotland doesn’t have to take back it’s Nationhood. It has a right to Nationhood since before 1707. Even in the event of a No vote (not likely) Scotland had a right to a separate Parlament with full fiscal powers for all the people of Scotland. A smaller proportion/percentage of the people in Scotland (the No voters/Unionists) have no right to imposed on the rest of citizens of Scotland a Westminster dominated Parliament handling Scottish affairs. Unionists/No voters are breaking UK Law, which give Scotland the right to a separate Parliament (governance) forever. Under Scottish, UK and International Law forever.
Wow. The “too small, too poor” phrase jumped out at me. I will be acquiring a copy. btw, copyright still applies, so not sure about scanning more pages.
“btw, copyright still applies, so not sure about scanning more pages”
Mr Paton is long dead and the book is out of print, so I’ll take the chance.
Rev, the banner is brill. I really like the crisp, clear lines.
Just acquired a copy on ebay. Apologies to the watcher if they are are on WoS.
@Dick Gaughan
Can these papers be viewed online?I would like to have a wee read through them see if there are any gems lurking.
You aren’t the real Dick Gaughan by any chance?
What a fascinating find. I was able to purchase a copy of the book from a private seller on Amazon. Can’t wait to read the rest of it.
@M4rkyboy says:
Can these papers be viewed online?I would like to have a wee read through them see if there are any gems lurking.
No idea. I presume they’ll be there somewhere.
You aren’t the real Dick Gaughan by any chance?
Beware of imitations 🙂
It would be great to think this material, and other information concerning the long historical perspective of the Scottish sovereignty debate, might find its way into schools before too much longer. Or at least be brought to the attention of younger voters.
Does anyone know whether this kind of material gets taught or discussed in schools?
Before long, let’s hope, it will all be part of a revamped curriculum – as will this site.
Paul Tucker former deputy head of the Bank of England, who resided over the Banking crash was given a Knighthood in the ‘Honours’ List. Endorsed by Westminster.
@Ken,Very interesting sir. It’s a feature of the Westminster government that they behave as though they are in 100% control of the UK.It’s time for the Scottish government to start flexing its muscles a bit and insisting that these wrongs are righted.
Chic I’m interested in Kant’s Scottish ancestry. Can you point me at your sources please
This is a magic find cheers Rev
Anybody remember the ex TV series ‘Who are the Scots ?’ (started me on this whole process)
Do think we need one before September ‘ Where are the Scots ?’
I see the last “Claim of Scotland” on Amazon is now priced at £114.00!
On betting I note the price for Scotland voting YES varies now between 0/30 and 4/1 with 7/2 being the most popular price among our major bookmakers. This represents a substantial movement from a top of 6/1 a few months ago.
Ladbrokes are now taking no bets whatsover on the referendum (which rather buggers my plan to make myself rich by betting over 55% Yes at 9/1) so I think they are heavily exposed and will remember losing a substantial sum of money by offering hugely over generous odds on the last Scottish election .
I think the metropolitan view of what is happening here is wakening up
Ken500 – what you say would not surprise me in the least and we have been conned for all these many years into accepting that’s the way it is. The oft quoted legal decision used by Mad Jock MacMad seemed to pin this theory to the deck, but was conveniently side-stepped by those who gain from the status quo being preserved and boosted. Hence the MSM and BBC so set against independence. Very interesting.
@orpheuslyre at 2.52
A possible source for the Voltaire quote (I haven’t tried to verify it). The National Library of Scotland exhibition catalogue The Eye of the Mind (Edinburgh, 1983) at p.33 cites the Gazette Litteraire de l’Europe, 4 April 1764. This article supports my suggestion that Voltaire was being ironical and had ‘less than amicable relations with contemporary Scottish writers and philosophers’.
The following is taken from a lengthy and fascinating paragraph in Chapter 5 of the book “Scottish Modernism and its Contexts, 1918-1959” by Margery Palmer McCulloch. She credits Richard J. Finlay’s “Independent and Free” and T M Devine and R J Finlay (eds) “Scotland in the Twentieth Century” as her sources.
“In the period before 1914, the Liberal Party had been the principal supporter of Home Rule in Scotland, partly in association with similar Home Rule demands from Ireland, but increasingly urged on by the campaigns of the Young Scots Society, whose members were committed to social reform including Home Rule. A Home Rule Bill had actually passed its second reading in the Westminster House of Commons in 1914, but the outbreak of war destroyed any chance of its being taken further towards implementation; and after the war the political scene changed as the Liberals under Lloyd George became discredited while support for the Labour Party grew. Home Rule, however, was still an issue in Scotland, and the Scottish Home Rule Association was re-formed as a non-party group between 1918 and 1919, led by the businessman Roland Muirhead. It soon became dominated by the increasingly successful Labour Party and by 1924 the question of ‘Home Rule’ was firmly in Labour hands. At the same time the coming of a minority Labour administration in Westminster began to move Labour Party objectives away from the Home Rule issue and towards remaining in power in London: a governing position that could be weakened or destroyed by the withdrawal of Scottish Labour MPs to a Scottish Parliament. The issue of self-government was therefore once again put on the back burner, a situation which was highlighted by an inadequate debate in the House of Commons on 9 May 1924 after which the Speaker refused to allow a vote. This retreat of the Labour Party from the support of Scottish Home Rule, and in particular the apparent lack of commitment on the part of the Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, himself a Scot, encouraged the growth of various nationalist groupings from the mid-1920s onwards, resulting eventually in the formation of the National Party of Scotland in 1928, the Scottish Party in 1932, and their merger to form the Scottish National Party in 1934.”
Evidently, the Labour Party in its origins as a Westminster party is against Scottish independence, not out of principle but as part of the core of its own existence. We should not expect Darling or any of the rest of them to come up with much at all by way of justification for the Union, therefore. As far as they are concerned it requires to be maintained out of nothing but tribal self-preservation, ie of the Labour Party itself. And how would they put that into words?
Westminster is acting illegally under UK/International law by controlling the MSM and not ensuring a free, fair, balanced MSM. A fundamental basic requirement of democratic requirement under UK/International Law. Unionists in Westminster are acting illegally not enforcing the Law and breaking the principles of UK and International Law.
@ Barontorc 4 January 2014 at 11.26 am
The is a link on a previous post on the tread to an Article on ‘The Union and the Law’ David M Walker 18 June 07. David M Walker Regius Professor of Law University of Glasgow 1958 – 1990.
It can be printed out. Discussing the actual wording and how the agreement of the Union of 1707 was formed. The Agreement both countries ratified, gave Scotland (and England?) the right to be a separate country with a separate legal system forever. No subsequent Law (Scottish or English or whatever) could every be allowed to change the agreement. If this agreement was broken the Union did not exist under UK/International Law. Westminster has constantly unlawfully,broken this agreement, especially since 1928 Universal Sufferage. Using Westminster Law over citizens in Scotland to renege on their ‘sovereign rights’.
GrutsForTea.
I can recommend “Scotlands Ruine” Lockhart of Cranwath’s Memoirs of The Union.
A real eye opener.
The Liberal (Whig) Party power in the 1900’s declined because a property (rateable) requirement for voting rights were gradually abolished. (Universal Sufferage 1928) Leading to the rise of the Labour Party. Unpropertied poorer people, could organise and engage with the Political process.
The Great Depression 1933.
M4kyboy@10.27am
they are in the national archive under the thatcher records 1984
had a look last night you will need to do a bit of searching theres also stuff in there about ireland
when you get the thatcher papers type in scotland thats the best i can do hope it helps you out
Ian Brotherhood, I’m still going, but I don’t know how to get in tae Quarantine to tell yie. Sorry Rev.
The English Establishment are like old generals, they are always fighting the last war. The Scottish demands for independence are growing exponentially, and have been for the last eighty years or more. They keep telling us the same lies and mis information they have been since 1707, they don’t want to see, it just doesn’t cut the mustard.
This nonsense is coming to a head, we might not get independence and thanks to mr Cameron we won’t even get home rule this time round. If Westminster decides there will be no more referendums then watch this space.
Why no offer of devo max? Because they would loose control of the only thing that motivates the politicians and makes us indispensable to Britain (aka England not Scotland) MONEY! If they can’t have our money then there is no point in having us, and the game will be up for England, so they will fight tooth and nail to win, the only thing they can’t fight with is truth, facts and honesty. Otherwise the game is up, they loose. Serious shit! Watch this space.
the tree of liberty
top of page under zany comedy relief youll find it there just above the wings logo
@ Dennis Smith. Many thanks for the source.I’ll go off and check it. I agree Voltaire was being ironic.
@ Dennis Smith (again)
A quick check finds you are indeed correct. Thanks again.
They can’t offered DevoMax under the terms of the 1707 Agreement.
Under the terms of the agreement of the 1707 Union, Scotland has a right as a separate country forever. The provision could never be change without the 1707 Union bring void. Under UK/International Law Scotland has the ‘sovereign rights’ of a separate country. English Law has no right over Scotland. Especially since 1928 (Universal suffrage) Scotland has a ‘sovereign right’ to a separate Parliament with full fiscal autonomy, a right to EU negotiated membership (people in Scotland voted for it) a right to use the £ – their currency and to keep the Queen.
Unionists/Westminster are breaking UK/International Law by refusing to comply with the agreement of the 1707 Union. Even if a (lower) proportion of Scottish citizens vote No. It doesn’t change the ‘sovereign right’ of citizens in Scotland to a separate country with full fiscal autonomy and a separate legal system under UK/International Law. The Barnett Formula is illegal under the terms of the 1707 Union.
Thank you Rev, a very interesting read indeed. It would have been something if the Establishment in 1949 had taken note of the two million who signed the covenant rather than the prevarication indulged in and still being indulged in today.
I realise that this same Establishment is still lying, and that is not too strong a word, to the Scottish People. We can only hope that the work done here and elsewhere is educating those who are capable of benefiting from it.
bald eagle, I’m a fanny, thanks, regards, the tree.
the tree of liberty
no problem do what i done explore everything you can only learn got lost a few times but just scream for help and somebody will find you
bloody hell that thingy shouldnt be there it should be yellow
Westminster/Unionists are acting illegally under UK/EU/International Law and under NATO rules. They are breaking UK/EU/International Law and EU/NATO rules. Scotland’s ‘sovereign right’ under the agreement of the 1707 Union, endorsed by UK/EU/International Law and EU/NATO rules.
Wow, just wow.
Mr Paton really did have a rare and honest insight for the time of this publication. First time I’ve ever seen this work and this was published in 1968? Looking forward to the following chapters.
“Scotland Resurgent” by Andrew Dewar Gibb published by Eneas Mackay, Stirling in 1950 is also very interesting. An extract from the penultimate paragraph of the book reads
“I feel bitterly about the misconceptions of my country which have found acceptance in England, but I also realise that any union so unequal was bound to produce unhappy results in the absence of a statesmanship so supremely great as to be unimaginable. Neither people is to blame, and like most nationalists in Scotland, I have not the least bitterness against the English, their politicians and leaders always excepted.”
If anyone is up for a laugh – please go onto Broon & Sarwars flagship initiative ‘United with Labour’ and leave a message, its a sitting duck honestly.
gordoz
am i looking at the right one there is only 4 replys and the last one was in june bloody hell talk about blowing in the wind. anybody selling kites mine has blown away
Westminster/Unionists will not go to the EU Commission to discuss Scotland EU membership position because Westminster know they are acting illegally under UK/EU/International Law. In any discussions with the European Commission it would come to light, they are breaking UK/EU and International Law.
The Barnett Formula is illegal and imposing English Law on Scotland and denying Scottish ‘sovereign right’ as a separate country, are against UK/EU/International Law. They do not want the European Commission to find out. Westminster/Unionists have always acted under secrecy, lies and denial to cover up their illegal actions. They use the power of Westminster to cover up their blatant criminality and to control the MSM, so people do not find out.
AnnDon
Strange, my copy just has HSITMW?
Maybe a different edition?
Accuracy not great.
I thought he must have written a new one specifically on the Enlightenment.
BTW, can recommend The Scottish Enlightenment by Alexander Broadie as far as it goes, by his own admission, he does not cover scientific and medical achievements to any great extent.
Sorry about truncated style, this is on mobile device and with the wrong specs. 🙂
@thomas
Yes, there’s two aspects to history I find interesting. First is to try to find the “truth” as much as possible, even at times walking or sitting on the spot to see if the geography matches (like Culloden). The second afterwards is to re-read the books to see what bias they have, and even to think about why. There’s a lot of books written to put down Scots, to show barbarism, Scot against Scot, greed, arrogance and lack of care such as they have done very much about Charles Edward Stuart – even now on a recent BBC program.
Some of this is by the English establishment, but much of it is from Scots, trying to ingratiate themselves with the Westminster establishment. They’re usually the worst by a long chalk. Nothing’s changed.
As we move further back in our discussions of Scottish history, and various enlightenment sources, remember that Project Gutenberg has a number of out of copyright books able to be downloaded. So does Googlebooks, though I’m never sure how to access that!
The emphasis tends to be American, naturally, but there is some useful stuff there.
Yes dads army , i completely agree.
The worst of it , as the likes of T Devine alludes to in his great book on Scotland`s history ( 1700 – 2000 ) is the propensity of many so called Scottish historians to ridicule and subvert , to almost reduce as worthless much of Scotlands vast history prior to the union.
Who can understand the minds of such people?
When any historian claims he has no bias , right away i switch off.
Every one of them is biased in one way or the other , but i prefer the ones stating that bias at the outset , and often they tend to be the ones closer to the truth and believable.
@Bald Eagle –
Thats their big site for the Union
Historians often specialise in certain area (periods) of history. Historical study is obviously vast. It is actually quite difficult for any Historian to know all History. Writing a book which covers 1700 to 2000 is quite usual/normal. Different Historians cover different periods of speciality.
To find out bias, political/social/economic/religious, either left, right, or centre, Research the Historian/author and also read as many books of interest as available.
@Ken500
The Home Rule/Independence for Scotland campaign started in 1934. Universal suffrage 1928. The Campaign started as soon as the vote was achieved.
No, the Home Rule for Scotland campaign began in the late 19th century. There was a Home Rule Association established, and the original Scottish Labour Party supported Home Rule. A bill for a devolved assembly for Scotland was going through Westminster when the First World War began. The campaign for independence began in 1928 (establishment of National Party of Scotland), or 1934 with the setting up of the SNP.
There is plenty of evidence of home rule organisations almost since the Treaty of Union though they often didn’t achieve huge popular support. Muir of Huntershill, the Scottish Radicals and the 1820 martyrs all had home rule, republicanism or independence or combinations of these as elements of their aim.
The most significant obstacle to their success was vested interest of a social strata of Scots personally doing well out of the union and those beholden to them , much the same as today.
I think we are at the point now where we have growing support among those in our society with little to lose and those in our society whose ambition, confidence, intelligence and imagination tells them we have everything to gain.
In the middle however we have however a stubborn, complacent, dull, nervous, defensive and deferential element with no ambition and no imagination who are easily swayed. These are target audience of Better Together. BT have lost it with the other two groups.
@ Muttley 79 4 January 2014pm
Ref – was to the Home Rule/Independence that could be maintained through the Ballit Box.
Irrelevant anyway. In 1928 A separate Scottish Parliament should have been set up in Edinburgh, under the terms, of the Agreement of the 1707 Union. ie The right of Scotland to be a separate country, with its own legal system and Church forever. An agreement which could never be changed, ever, without the terms of the 1707 Union becoming void.
1830 – 1850 Revolution, riots and uprising all over Europe concerning issues of Democracy, rights of the people. Karl Marx/Hegal Communist Manifesto. Weber etc. Great Exibition. Eiffel Tower. Age of Empire. Boom. Industrialisation. Glasgow City of Empire. 1890’s Russian
Industriallising. Population Boom in Europe. Uprising in Russia challenging the Duma and the Czar. Czar refused to back down. Conflict of Empire – 1 WW. 1914-18.
Russia Revolution 1917.
# Ballot Box