Product Description

The story of modern Britain began 300 years ago, with the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland in 1707. In this fresh and challenging look at the origins of the United Kingdom, the first full study for four decades, Michael Fry traces the fault-lines of the present time right back to the treaty drawn up between the ruling classes of Scotland and England three centuries ago. In many previous histories this has been interpreted as mere dictation by England, which Scotland accepted for the economic gains it was supposed to bring. Fry rejects the idea that the economy was of overwhelming importance and shows how Scots were able to exploit English ignorance of and indifference to their country, as evident now as then, to steer the settlement in their own favour. That left the future of Scotland, England and Britain open, not closed. The full implications are only being worked out in our own time. While focusing on the few years which led up to the Union, Fry's reassessment casts its net wider than existing interpretations. He includes the political history of England as well as of Scotland, all set against the backdrop of war in Europe and the emergence of imperialism. He compares the fate of the Scots with that of other small nations. By a close, comparative reading of the evidence he manages to reconstruct the human as well as the political story, in the voices of the people where they can still be discerned, in plots and conspiracies long lost from view, in reports from battlefields and in the impassioned debates of the Scots Parliament as the nation steeled itself for the loss of independence which, even so, it would not allow to become irrevocable.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #441283 in Books
• Published on: 2006-10-05
• Format: Illustrated
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 342 pages

About the Author
Michael Fry was educated at the universities of Oxford and Hamburg. The author of eight books, including The Scottish Empire (2001), How the Scots Made America (2003) and Wild Scots: Four Hundred Years of Highland History (2005), he has also written numerous articles on modern Scottish history and several political pamphlets. He has contributed to most major Scottish and British newspapers and has been a weekly columnist for the Scotsman, the Herald and the Sunday Times. He lives in Edinburgh.

Customer Reviews

Superb account of the making of the Union
Chapter by chapter, year by year from 1702 to 1707, Scottish historian Michael Fry shows how the Union was made. He puts this historic achievement in the context of its time, a period of state-building and wars between rival empires.

In 1688-89, the Scottish Convention, in its Claim of Right, listed the offences committed by James VII of Scotland (James II of England). They resolved that he had violated `the fundamental constitution of this kingdom and altered it from a legal limited monarchy to an arbitrary despotic power'. They ratified the 1688 revolution.

Building on this, the Scottish parliament of 1706-7 progressed towards the Act of Union. This was a Union of states without a union of churches, against the age's prevailing practice of `cuius regio, eius religio'. Which means, `Whose the region, his the religion'. That is, the religion of the ruler of a state determined the religion of the people of that state. Britain became a single state, with not one but two established churches.

The Act of Security for the Kirk established the Church of Scotland, away from the absolute sovereignty of the British parliament. This won Presbyterian support for the Union. The Union forbade the Church of England to establish Anglicanism in Scotland (as Charles I had tried) and forbade presbyterians to establish Presbyterianism in England (as the Solemn League and Covenant had tried). It ended wars of religion in Britain.

The Union also guaranteed the independence of Scottish law and education. It was no one-sided dictation, no simple incorporation.

The Union also gave Scotland unprecedented economic opportunities. As Scottish MP William Seton said, "This nation being poor, and without force to protect its commerce, cannot reap great advantage by it, till it partake of the trade and protection of some powerful neighbour nation, that can communicate both these ... By this Union, we will have access to all the advantages in commerce the English enjoy."

There were other good reasons for Union. Many Scottish presbyterians urged their countrymen to support the Union to save Britain from the joint threat of Catholic France and the deposed Stuarts. Englishmen and Scots united against `Popish Bigotry and French Tyranny'. In 1708, the Royal Navy foiled a French invasion force of 6,000 troops, and the pretender James Stuart.

The Scottish parliament discussed the Act of Union clause by clause from 12 October 1706 to 16 January 1707. In England, by contrast, the Act was rammed through a Commons committee in a single sitting. The Scottish parliament ratified the Treaty of Union and the Act of Security for the Kirk in tandem as the Scottish Act of Union by 110 votes to 67.

The Scots had negotiated their survival; they were not crushed by force like the Catalans. Fry writes, "the vigour of the Scots' existing traditions and institutions let them shape the Union too, for good or ill. The Union was a genuine choice in 1701, not just a factitious product of English expansionism." He has disproved the old lie that "the Scots were bought and sold for English gold."

"I see our ancient Mother Caledonia...breathing out her last"
When you look at the characters in the Scottish parliament now, you cannot help but be struck by the lack of charismatic characters. With the exception of Alex Salmond and Maggie MacDonald. If you want true politicians you go back to the parliaments of 1680's to 1707.

Within schools and society as a whole - the period of union is one which is poorly understood. What a pity that is. For within Fry's book there comes to life a world where politicians entered parliament with swords. Disputes were to be solved by the duel and not by an appearance on Newsnight. Just as quickly as you rose in the political life in Scotland - one false move and you could end up at the bottom.

Fry is a masterful writer - intermixing raw politics with colourful descriptions of the key characters of the time. Its a good sign when you have a chuckle about people who have been dead for a little under 300 years. Within the pages you will be introduced to the likes of the Duke of Queensbury who would probably have sold his grandmother if it advanced his interests. Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun who went from impassioned speeches to random rants (Wendy Alexander perhaps?). The Duke of Argyll whose response to petitions from around Scotland was that the paper should be used to make kites! A particular favourite of mine is when Fry writes that the Parliament wanted to hear from "Braveheart Hamilton" and not "Bookish Setton".

After reading the book - you are struck by a number of things. How exciting the politics of late 17th and early 18th Scotland were. Also what the country lost when the parliament ceased to be.

I won't go into the historical merits of this book. What I will say is that its a rip roaring read and shamefully - I think its made me a nationalist?!

==========================================================================

As a side note - the Parliament of Scotland records (for up till 1707) have been published online - they are worth a read alongside this book.