Scottish Independence: Historically Justified?

The votes are in and the Kingdom of Great Britain remains intact. A brief history of this union and the rationale for its perpetuation would be useful at this point. In this age of flux that perceives change of any kind as virtually synonymous with progress, it is natural that many have reflexively sided with independence without a careful study of how this union came to be.

The relationship between Scotland and England was a rocky one for centuries, as were those of almost all ancient and medieval kingdoms. Intermarriage, religious cross-pollination, and sporadic alliances mitigated tensions at many points until a breakthrough occurred in the Union of Crowns of 1603. This union was of the monarchies only, since James VI of Scotland was the legitimate successor to Elizabeth I of England. He thus became James I of England, and the two kingdoms now had the same monarch but with two crowns.

While the formal union of their parliaments would not be accomplished until a century had passed, there were several proposals to do so that enjoyed support among many in both realms. A precursor to the full union in 1707 occurred during the rule of Cromwell and the commonwealth governments. An official union of England, Ireland, and Scotland was achieved in a republican form in 1657 and only dissolved with the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II. Several other attempts to unify governments littered the proceeding decades of the seventeenth century.

With the Act of Union of 1707, the true integration of these sometimes fraternal and sometimes quarrelsome states was finally accomplished. We can see now how the history of this integration is not as simple as the convenient tale of perpetual English oppression; rather, it was the culmination of a political process occurring over several centuries. Ironically for the revisionist, the Scots took a disproportionately large role in another act of statecraft that is often laid at the feet of the English.

We have a tendency to forget that the “British Empire” was actually British and not merely English. Critics of empire are far less likely to castigate the Scots for being empire builders than they are to castigate the English for the same offense. Yet, from royal governors to the officer corps of the British military, the British Empire was more Scottish than an exact representation of population would have made it. Incidentally, the Irish, too, were overrepresented in the military volunteer corps, another little noted fact of empire.

I have not attempted an exhaustive justification of the union between Scotland and the rest of the UK in this piece. There are many other reasons for this connection: cultural, economic, practical. However, laying these aside, there is a basic question of the historical justice of this political arrangement. The testament of the past sides with the legitimacy of this union if there is any legitimacy in states uniting with one another at all. For those Scots longing for the Scottish flag to once again fly over their great land, I humbly point out that it never ceased to fly. It only gained strength by choosing to rest inside the bond of that emblem of greatness, that testament to temporal glory, which is the Union Jack.