The Union
Despite 13 years of school education and 7 years of higher education, I now realise I have always been woefully ignorant about, not just Scottish history but the political history of, call it what you like: the UK, the British Isles, Great Britain, The Union.
Now I've read enough, seen enough and heard enough to be able to ask: what is this thing called The Union?
It's not an object. It has no physical presence in any parliament, except as a title. But it is very important to many people, both those who support it and those who want to get rid of it.
What is The Union for?
I can see why both England and Scotland wanted it back in 1707. England had fought many wars with Scotland and always had this potential enemy on its doorstep, a neighbour which had long allied itself with England's traditional enemies, such as France. The crowns of England and Scotland were already united. (I wonder if the Stewart dynasty saw this as being to the advantage of Scotland, rather than England). A union of the parliaments would do away with the concern about an enemy on the border once and for all.
Except it didn't, of course. There were quite a few Scottish rebellions between 1707 and 1847. Some of these had to do with the monarchy but the last had to do with the appalling suffering experienced by the poor when the potato crop failed. This rebellion led to both the Highland Clearances and the struggle of crofters to secure their land rights - an issue still not properly settled to this day.
Scotland, as far as I can see, was broke in 1707. I'm sketchy about this because Scottish history was not a part of my education. But Scotland had invested large amounts in the Darien Scheme, which seems to have been an attempt to give Scotland a colony overseas. Much as England and Spain had colonies. That's how Scotland saw itself: as a country looking to expand. Darien failed for several reasons and the union of the parliaments looked like the one way to save the Scottish economy. Not for 'the people' (who had no say) but for a small number of (mainly) landowners. Promises were made about how Scotland would benefit from The Union and revolts ensued when the benefits failed to materialise.
A lot of effort went into making Scotland part of The Union. There was army occupation, social upheaval and the rapid introduction of the Industrial Revolution to a country in need of jobs, but the main weapon was the Education Act of 1872 which decreed that all state education would be through the medium of English.
Thus, we had the laughable situation of Scottish children being taught by people who in their real lives spoke Gaelic or the many dialects of Scots only being able to communicate in the classroom through a language that was essentially foreign to them all. And just in case there was any backsliding, schools were inspected, both by the education authorities and by the church of Scotland to make sure the teaching and learning were taking place according to the act.
Of course, the Scots being who they are didn't give in to that kind of pressure: I find it very interesting that the Burns Federation was founded in 1885 and An Comunn, which created the Gaelic National Mod, was founded in 1891. More interesting is that both of these organisations have created a huge cultural entity that is known through Scotland and every part of the world where Scots have settled. In its own quiet way, this is a form of rebellion - as my granny used to say: "There's merr than wan wey tae skin a cat!" Scottish culture is alive and well and we owe the founders of An Comunn and the Burns Federation a huge vote of thanks.
So what is The Union for nowadays?
I've paused here for quite a while to think about this. I know a lot of people who believe in The Union. Or rather, who don't like the idea of being separated from the rest of the UK. They have family there and don't like the idea of having a border between them. I have too but I don't see a personal issue as more important than a national one.
A few people see themselves as belonging to the working class and feel united by solidarity with their colleagues in England. I also know a lot of people who are worried about finance: they've worked hard to get to where they are and are concerned they will lose out if Scotland leaves The Union.
But hardworking people really owe nothing to The Union. And I take issue with the idea that Scotland has done well out of The Union. I think Scotland has been very useful to The Union for a long time: oil, gas, a place to park its nuclear weapons, an industrial heartland that could be discarded once its usefulness ran out. I can't tell these folk anything except: you're going to lose out anyway when the Tories crash the UK out of the EU.
The worst part of The Union for me is the ignorance of English politicians, some of whom seem to think that England is the senior partner in The Union, able to dictate what should happen. Of course, we see this kind of ignorance when the same politicians deal with Ireland. (One even thought all English people were entitled to an Irish passport). And do these people even think of Wales? Or is it just another English county to them?
My conclusion has to be that The Union is nothing now, except when it suits Westminster politicians. Time to get rid of it.
Now I've read enough, seen enough and heard enough to be able to ask: what is this thing called The Union?
It's not an object. It has no physical presence in any parliament, except as a title. But it is very important to many people, both those who support it and those who want to get rid of it.
What is The Union for?
I can see why both England and Scotland wanted it back in 1707. England had fought many wars with Scotland and always had this potential enemy on its doorstep, a neighbour which had long allied itself with England's traditional enemies, such as France. The crowns of England and Scotland were already united. (I wonder if the Stewart dynasty saw this as being to the advantage of Scotland, rather than England). A union of the parliaments would do away with the concern about an enemy on the border once and for all.
Except it didn't, of course. There were quite a few Scottish rebellions between 1707 and 1847. Some of these had to do with the monarchy but the last had to do with the appalling suffering experienced by the poor when the potato crop failed. This rebellion led to both the Highland Clearances and the struggle of crofters to secure their land rights - an issue still not properly settled to this day.
Scotland, as far as I can see, was broke in 1707. I'm sketchy about this because Scottish history was not a part of my education. But Scotland had invested large amounts in the Darien Scheme, which seems to have been an attempt to give Scotland a colony overseas. Much as England and Spain had colonies. That's how Scotland saw itself: as a country looking to expand. Darien failed for several reasons and the union of the parliaments looked like the one way to save the Scottish economy. Not for 'the people' (who had no say) but for a small number of (mainly) landowners. Promises were made about how Scotland would benefit from The Union and revolts ensued when the benefits failed to materialise.
A lot of effort went into making Scotland part of The Union. There was army occupation, social upheaval and the rapid introduction of the Industrial Revolution to a country in need of jobs, but the main weapon was the Education Act of 1872 which decreed that all state education would be through the medium of English.
Thus, we had the laughable situation of Scottish children being taught by people who in their real lives spoke Gaelic or the many dialects of Scots only being able to communicate in the classroom through a language that was essentially foreign to them all. And just in case there was any backsliding, schools were inspected, both by the education authorities and by the church of Scotland to make sure the teaching and learning were taking place according to the act.
Of course, the Scots being who they are didn't give in to that kind of pressure: I find it very interesting that the Burns Federation was founded in 1885 and An Comunn, which created the Gaelic National Mod, was founded in 1891. More interesting is that both of these organisations have created a huge cultural entity that is known through Scotland and every part of the world where Scots have settled. In its own quiet way, this is a form of rebellion - as my granny used to say: "There's merr than wan wey tae skin a cat!" Scottish culture is alive and well and we owe the founders of An Comunn and the Burns Federation a huge vote of thanks.
So what is The Union for nowadays?
I've paused here for quite a while to think about this. I know a lot of people who believe in The Union. Or rather, who don't like the idea of being separated from the rest of the UK. They have family there and don't like the idea of having a border between them. I have too but I don't see a personal issue as more important than a national one.
A few people see themselves as belonging to the working class and feel united by solidarity with their colleagues in England. I also know a lot of people who are worried about finance: they've worked hard to get to where they are and are concerned they will lose out if Scotland leaves The Union.
But hardworking people really owe nothing to The Union. And I take issue with the idea that Scotland has done well out of The Union. I think Scotland has been very useful to The Union for a long time: oil, gas, a place to park its nuclear weapons, an industrial heartland that could be discarded once its usefulness ran out. I can't tell these folk anything except: you're going to lose out anyway when the Tories crash the UK out of the EU.
The worst part of The Union for me is the ignorance of English politicians, some of whom seem to think that England is the senior partner in The Union, able to dictate what should happen. Of course, we see this kind of ignorance when the same politicians deal with Ireland. (One even thought all English people were entitled to an Irish passport). And do these people even think of Wales? Or is it just another English county to them?
My conclusion has to be that The Union is nothing now, except when it suits Westminster politicians. Time to get rid of it.
Comments
Post a Comment