Monday, May 12, 2008

A View of Scottish Independence

From a letter written by actor Sean Connery to the Los Angeles Times, published April 5, 2008:

"There are few more cherished American ideals than independence. As we prepare to celebrate Tartan Day, established as April 6 by a U.S. Senate resolution in 1998 to commemorate one of the inspirations for the Declaration of Independence -- Scotland's Declaration of Arbroath -- it is as good a time as any to tell the uniquely Scottish story of independence.

In 1320, Scots penned the Declaration of Arbroath. In lines that would echo through the ages, they wrote, "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honors that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Many Americans are familiar with that part of the story -- of the patriot William Wallace and the Scots who stood up for independence. What is understandably less familiar is that in 1707, a group of Scottish noblemen sold Scotland's independence and joined with England to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

It wasn't a popular move. In fact, Daniel Defoe wrote that "for every Scot in favor, 99 is against."

So it is not surprising that some people have been working ever since to change it.

More interesting than the past, though, is the national conversation going on in Scotland now. What is so special about it is that the world has an example of a completely democratic process in which the people are considering their future, and in which their voice will be the final word.

In 1997, Scots spoke loudly when they voted to reinstate their Parliament. When Scottish National Party President Winifred Ewing was able to say, "The Scots Parliament, adjourned on 25th March 1707, is hereby reconvened," she touched hearts across the country.

The Scottish Parliament has authority for health, education, courts and the environment. The British Parliament retains control over most taxes and foreign affairs.

The question now is, what next? The current Scottish government is the first one in modern times that wants to see Scotland reclaim its independence.

The best part of this debate is that it is based on ideas, not ethnicity. Conversations about the best future for the country are happening in the Scottish Parliament and in homes and workplaces across the country.

The Scottish government wants Scotland and England to become independent and equal nations, with the queen and her successors continuing as the common head of state of both -- similar to what happened in Canada and Australia in the 20th century. In other words, we would move toward becoming united kingdoms, rather than the United Kingdom.

Debating their constitutional future does not stop Scots from contributing to today's important international issues. This week, the Scottish government, with the support of the National Geographic Society, announced the Saltire Prize -- a $20-million award for innovation in renewable energy -- as a challenge to the world's scientists. The message that Scotland is open for business came across clearly this week as Scotland dropped its business taxes to be even more internationally competitive. And you might not think Scotland when you think football, but today, the New York Giants' own Greenock-born Lawrence Tynes will be leading the Tartan Day parade down 6th Avenue.

Independence is something Americans inherently understand. My whole adult life, I have waited and worked for the day that Scots are able to decide democratically if they wish to rejoin the community of nations as an independent and equal member. A recent poll showed that two-thirds of Scots would welcome that opportunity under certain circumstances.

I believe that day -- Scotland's independence day -- is closer than ever."

The letter can be seen here as posted online by the Los Angeles Times.

More information about the Act of Union (1707) mentioned in this article can be found here.

Slainte,
Dianne

Sphere: Related Content

6 comments:

Michael Follon said...

There is a passage in the Declaration of Arbroath which comes before the extract in the article by Sean Connery which is not as well known. Here it is -

'...But after all, if this prince shall leave these principles he hath so nobly pursued, and consent that we or our kingdom be subjected to the king or people of England, we will immediately endeavour to expel him, as our enemy and as the subverter both of his own and our rights, and we will make another king, who will defend our liberties...'

This translation is from the following book -

'Scottish Historical Documents' by Professor Gordon Donaldson (1913-1993), Former Professor of Scottish History and Palaeography, University of Edinburgh (1963-1979), p57, ISBN 1-897784-41-4.

Dianne Bergstedt FSA Scot said...

Michael, that's an important point and I'm glad you brought it up.
The Scots put the Bruce on notice: he was not above the Declaration, he was subject to it as well. If the King betrayed the oath of the Declaration, the people of Scotland would remove and replace him with another King who would remain steadfast to his people.
The Scottish nobles may have been nervous about the Bruce family history of periodically allying with the English for their own benefit, and wanted to not only insure that Robert remained loyal to the Scots, but that all future rulers understood that their position as King or Queen was subject to the disposition of the Scottish people.

Michael Follon said...

Dianne, I noticed from the blog that there was a fairly long list of books and was wondering if I could suggest some other books which I have quoted from in comments to blogs or in letters to the newspapers -

'WILLIAM WALLACE' by Andrew Fisher, ISBN 0 85976 557 1,

'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, ISBN 0 7153 6904 0,
as well as his book 'Scottish Historical Documents' which I mentioned in my previous comment.

'The Scottish Insurrection of 1820' by Peter Berresford Ellis and Seumas Mac A'Ghobhainn. There are three extracts from this book which I find particularly interesting -

From the Preface to the 1989 edition:

'At that time [prior to publication] people were astounded that such an event, resulting in 85 indictments of High Treason, in public executions, in transportations and imprisonments, could have been so effectively eliminated from historical consciousness.'

From the Preface to the 2001 edition:

'the fact that it was an aim of the Scottish Radicals to set up a separate parliament in Edinburgh has been met with skeptical posturing. Yet this was clearly spelt out by Glasgow Police Chief, James Mitchell, in his letters to the Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, of March 18 and 29 1820.'

and on p.97 -

In 1812 the United States had, frustrated by continued English interference in American affairs, restriction of American trade, interference in American freedom of movement and economic policies, declared war on England. The war ended on January 8, 1815, when the Americans won a decisive victory over the English forces. Scotsmen were still considered persona grata with Americans and not really regarded as nationals of the country with which they were at war. Jeffrey [Francis], in fact, was received and entertained by Munroe, the Secretary of State, and even lunched with President Madison, with whom he had a number of discussions on Scottish problems.'

'Independent and Free: Scottish Politics and the Origins of the Scottish National Party, 1918-1945' by Richard J Finlay, ISBN 0-85976-399-4.
This book traces the development of the Scottish national movement in the first half of the twentieth century.

I also have my own blog The 'Sanitization' of Scottish History at http://follonblogs.blogspot.com/.

Dianne Bergstedt FSA Scot said...

Michael. thank you for this information. I will add the books to the book titles column.
Please refer to my comment on your post "Filtered History" for further thoughts.

Michael Follon said...

Dianne, just to let you know I've read your comment to my post 'Filtered History' and replied to it.

Michael Follon said...

Dianne,

The recent fiasco brought about by Wendy Alexander's 'bring it on' call regarding the SNP government's stated intention of holding a referendum on Scottish Independence in 2010, a simple 'I Agree' or 'I Disagree' to the proposition: "The Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the UK so that Scotland becomes an independent state.", just goes to show that the Labour Party in Scotland is still clueless, and absolutely terrified, after the results of the Scottish Parliament elections last year. Most British Unionists just can't face up to the fact that some have already realised -

'greater power can only be granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament and here there is potential for conflict. To take the extreme example, constitutional matters are reserved but it is hard to see how the Scottish Parliament could be prevented from holding a referendum on independence should it be determined to do so. If the Scottish people expressed a desire for independence the stage would be set for a direct clash between what is the English doctrine of sovereignty and the Scottish doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.'

SOURCE: 'The Operation of Multi-Layer Democracy', Scottish Affairs Committee Second Report of Session 1997-1998, HC 460-I, 2 December 1998, paragraph 27.


There have been quite a few blogs about the possible repercussions of Wendy Alexander's call, here are a few -

LIVEJOURNAL - Newsnight, http://airiddh1.livejournal.com/372821.html,
the wilted rose - Wendy's leadership challenge? Don't make me laugh, http://thewiltedrose.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/wendys-leadership-challenge-dont-make-me-laugh/,

This contains a table which suggests that the SNP could win 43 out of the 59 Westminster seats in Scotland in a UK General Election in 2010.
The Tap Blog - Labour's 40 Scottish MPs To Be Annihilated To 8, http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2008/05/labours-40-scottish-mps-to-be.html,
and if you want a laugh go to this one -
Bring It On! (Wendya Think We Should Have a Referendum?), http://bigrab.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/bring-it-onwendya-think-we-should-have-a-referendum/