|
Never mind Independence...
what has Devolution done for Scotland is the question.
In actual fact using
Google to try and find answers on this has produced very little
analysis. I discounted articles by the various political parties as
being skewed so I only looked for independent reports.
Since devolution,
policymaking in Scotland has been profoundly conservative
Scotland has been largely self-governing in major areas such as health,
education and local government since devolution in 1999. All types of
policy innovation were promised with devolution and are promised by
advocates of independence. In this context it is salutary to reflect
that the overall record of the Scottish Government and the Scottish
Parliament in these major policy areas in the decade and a half of their
current existence is, with a few exceptions, conservative, argues Norman
Bonney.
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of policymaking in Scotland under
devolution has been its profound conservatism. The establishment of the
Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in 1999 were supposed to
lead to a form of more transparent and accountable governance that would
free Scotland from the dead hand of decision making at UK level and make
government more responsive to Scottish concerns. But the reality of
policy outcomes has been much more modest than the rhetoric of political
leaders.
Local Government
In the major fields of domestic policy responsibility assigned to the
new devolved institutions, such as health, education, local government,
there have been remarkably few initiatives. A system of local
government, reorganised in 1996 on the basis of 32 multi-purpose local
authorities and designed by the preceding Conservative UK government,
has been largely left untouched. As in England a grossly inadequate
system of council tax inherited from the preceding Conservative
government and crying out for reform, has been left untouched by the
first two Labour/Liberal Democratic administrations and the two
successor SNP administrations. And under the latter the system has been
shored up by Scottish government funding to facilitate a council tax
freeze and containment of local government expenditure.
Education
In primary and secondary education the basis structure of service
delivery has continued from the inherited system. The Curriculum for
Excellence has, however, seen a comprehensive review of the content of
teaching and learning. Even despite Scottish Government concerns about
sectarianism in Scottish society and legal and policy initiatives on the
matter, the division of state schooling into those 14 per cent of
schools with a Roman Catholic ethos and the ‘non-denominational’ but
Protestant remainder has been continued in accordance with Scottish laws
inherited from the Westminster UK Parliament in 1999. Laws similarly
inherited concerning required religious observance (prayers) in state
schools have never been debated in the Scottish Parliament although
administrative guidelines for them have been twice amended by the
Scottish Government in ways that has avoided debate in the Parliament
and confined discussion to certain interested religious groups.
At the tertiary level, the continued generous funding of the Scottish
Government by the UK Government has to be one major factor explaining
how free university tuition continues to be available to Scottish and EU
students but not those originating south of the border. Savings on
budgets for further education student maintenance and other economies in
that sector have also contributed to the priority accorded higher
education. UK wide funding arrangements for research have
disproportionately benefited Scottish universities such that the
Scottish Government would like to continue them even if Scotland votes
to be a separate country.
Health
Health expenditure of about £11 billion constitutes about one third of
all the Scottish budget and results in a ten per cent per capita higher
spend north of the border compared to England. But although the Scottish
NHS has been spared the scale of continual market based reorganisation
experienced in the south and limited moves to hospital trusts were
repealed, relative performance does not seem to have improved. For
instance, the percentage of the Scottish population saying that their
health was ‘not good’ in both the 2001 and 2011 censuses remained the
same at 10 per cent. The percentage of the population with a long term
activity-limiting health problem or disability was 20 per cent in both
years. In England the comparable latter figure was 18 per cent in both
years. Despite the higher per capita spending on health in Scotland
there is no evidence that devolution in health policy has made any
profound difference in comparative levels of well-being or substantially
eroded differences in health outcomes between Scotland and England. A
study for 2001-7 suggested, for instance, that Scotland still had one of
the worst health records in Europe and that ‘excess mortality’, above
that accounted for by deprivation, was 20 per cent higher in Scotland
than England.
A 2012 Audit Scotland report has also indicated little change in health
inequalities within Scotland in the last decade. Despite avoiding the
major structural reorganisations experienced by the NHS in England, and
being more generously endowed with public funds, the NHS in Scotland
does not seem to have made, under devolution, any fundamental change to
the pattern of relatively poor health outcomes. Devolution did not
involve much change in the governance of health in Scotland in as much
as the ministerial, civil service and medical leadership continued as
before but within a new ministerial structure. What was new was the
Scottish Parliament and it does not seem to have made much difference.
Policy innovations
Two innovations do, however, deserve mention. Free prescriptions were
brought in by the minority SNP administration just prior to the 2011
Scottish Parliamentary elections at an additional annual cost of only
£57 million since the elderly and groups like cancer patients already
benefited from such arrangements. Free personal care, initiated by the
second Labour/Liberal Democrat administration, was a much more costly
innovation. In 2011 70,000 people benefited from this service. According
to one study this system results in spending on social services in
Scotland being 25 per cent higher per capita than elsewhere in UK.
Mention also needs to be made of the recent merging of regional police
and fire services into centralised national organisations – perhaps the
most radical of the changes resulting from devolution.
Devolution – a shield and a clamp?
One of the major purposes of devolution was to provide a shield for
Scotland from Westminster UK policies on domestic issues which were
unfavourably regarded north of the border. This purpose has been
achieved in matters such as the organisation of the health services and
it has been accompanied by innovation in some policy areas. But what is
most remarkable is the lack of institutional and policy change in the
major spending areas of local government, education and health where
systems inherited from the UK system of government have been continued
without any substantial critical scrutiny in the new national
legislature and little evidence of improved overall performance. The
rhetoric of devolution has been much more radical than the reality.
Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position
of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of
Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting.
About the Author
Norman Bonney – Edinburgh Napier University
Norman Bonney is emeritus professor at Edinburgh Napier University. His
recent publications are listed at
http://www.normanbonneypublications.blogspot.co.uk. He tweets from @NormanBonney
10 Years of the
Scottish Government’s International Development Programme
In the last ten years the Scottish Government (SG) has spent a total of
£60-70m on its international development programme. Although cited as a
success and as being unique in its approach, closer analysis reveals a
different picture, and raises fundamental questions over the rationale
for the programme and over its future direction.
This includes whether, in the context of unprecedented growth in UK
Government aid spending, to which Scottish citizens contribute at around
£450 per household, any SG international development programme is
justified.
International development is a reserved power – therefore there is no
statutory requirement for an SG. In this context, the origins of the SG
programme lie in a spectrum of factors – developmental (contributing to
reducing poverty globally), ‘formal’-political (a greater international
presence for the SG) and ‘informal’-political (for politicians, the easy
distraction and vanity of development projects).
The programme itself is characterised by a diversity of activity. It
consists primarily of a series of small projects (fifty-seven in 2016)
and core funding to three Scottish-based coordination and networking
development NGOs.
Malawi is the main focus of activity, reflecting the historic close ties
between the two nations, and consumes around half the programme’s £9m
current annual budget. The SG reports on the programme in positive
terms. However, in practice there has been little assessment of its
efficacy – especially in terms of the SG’s own key criteria of ‘impact’
(has this changed poor people’s lives?) and ‘sustainability’ (will
change last?). The only part of the programme which allows this level of
insight is its flagship and largest initiative – the Malawi Renewable
Energy Acceleration Programme (MREAP). MREAP can be seen as a window
into the performance of the whole programme and is frequently cited as a
success, especially its headline achievement of increasing 80,000
people’s access to affordable renewable energy.
But more detailed scrutiny, from MREAP’s own analysis, shows that most
of these gains will not be sustained. And the reason for this weak
performance lies in basic flaws in its conception, design and approach
which, ignoring wider development learning, have pushed an aid-giver’s
agenda. Rather than make a significant, lasting difference, MREAP’s
performance, especially its lack of sustainability, bears all the
hallmarks of the wider development experience in Malawi - a country
awash with, and dependent on, aid resources, most of which have been
ineffective.
After ten years, what can be concluded about the performance of the SG
international development programme?
- Politically, it has been a ‘success’. There exists an implicit
consensus between the political parties that this is, somehow, a ‘good
thing’ to do. The common manifesto positions of the main parties at the
2016 Scottish Parliamentary election confirm international development’s
political acceptance. Pronouncements on the programme referring to its
success and its innovative character, and to this being evidence of
Scotland’s compassionate and influential role, are largely accepted.
- With regard to its support for the Scottish Malawi Partnership, there
seems no doubt that the programme has helped catalyse wider interest in
and funding for Malawian causes – and this, in itself, is a positive
outcome.
- But overall there is little evidence of achievement of substance -
meaningful change in the lives of poor people in Malawi or developing
countries. From a development perspective, it has not been a success and
the SG’s repeated assertions of the programme’s virtues have an empty
quality that serve a political rather than any developmental purpose.
- The development rationale for an SG international development
programme remains unclear. Especially now, in the light of the
unprecedented growth in aid spending from the UK Government – now equal
to £450 per household from £270 ten years ago – and widespread cutbacks
in other public expenditure, why spend £4 more per household on aid?
For the future, answering the core question - what is it that Scottish
aid can do that UK aid cannot? – is critical. If there is no credible
response to it, the Scottish international development effort runs the
risk of being seen as a ‘me-too’ gesture, tokenism dressed up as
idealism, cosy political self-interest as development concern.
Read more at:
http://www.springfieldcentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AG-Briefing-Paper-final-2.pdf
Some additional
information and interesting reading can be found at:
https://aidankerr.com/
An interesting review of
the work of the Scottish Parliament
http://www.scottishreview.net/KennethRoy215a.html
Review
of the SNP
SNP’s 10 years in power are looking more like a lost decade
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/alex-bell/429005/alex-bell-snps-10-years-power-looking-like-lost-decade/
I came across this
article by Alex Bell in the Dundee Courier in May 2017 and it's the
first article I've found in a number of years that questions what
Scotland has achieved since Devolution. The whole article can be read at
the above link.
This lack of evidence has long dogged Scotland – we do things, then we
do different things, often swayed by international examples but are very
poor at methodically tracking our own policies, or building policies
around the evidence.
Policies pursued since devolution haven’t fundamentally altered Scotland
at all.
We have done different things to the rest of the UK but these have
largely been in the realm of reducing charges to services (ending bridge
tolls, free prescriptions, elderly care, tuition fees) and we
reorganised institutions.
However, we haven’t taken any bold policy decision, such as to
renationalise utilities or change the tax system and the evidence shows
we haven’t closed the poverty gap, redistributed wealth, improved
education or educated more poor people.
The core “Scottish” problems of chronic urban poverty and a slow economy
are as they were in 2007 and pretty much as they were in 1997, when we
voted for Holyrood.
Scotland is approaching, if not already in, a crisis of stagnation – at
such times nations need big ideas, brave decisions and bold leadership.
The sad truth is that pretty much everything we have done to date hasn’t
worked. What are
the powers of the Scottish Parliament? and
What has the Parliament done for you?
See
http://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/12506.aspx
Scottish Identity in
the 18th and 19th Centuries
By Chris Gibbs This
is a view of what happened when we became Great Britain...
King James VI of Scotland
ascended the throne of England in 1603 as James I, ‘King of Great
Britain’. For the first time the fiery and independent Scotland was
united with its southern neighbour via the monarchy, yet they remained
independent kingdoms with their own parliaments, legal and religious
systems. In 1707 the Union of Scotland and England occurred. Through the
terms of the Act of Union the Scottish parliament was abolished and
England and Scotland were joined as the one kingdom of Great Britain,
yet as before Scotland retained its religious and legal independence.
The last Jacobite uprising occurred in 1745 and with the defeat of
Bonnie Prince Charlie an end was put to the movement to try to return
the Stuarts – the one time kings of Scotland – to the throne. Almost all
Scots were now firmly under the Hanoverian banner and they gradually
became active citizens of Great Britain. This essay will study the
Scottish identity in the 18th and 19th Centuries, including their
culture, traditions, interpretation of history, role in society,
relations with the monarchy and their taking up of a British identity
alongside the Scottish one.
The Scots of the 17th and 18th Centuries can roughly be divided into two
groups – the highlanders and lowlanders. The highlanders of northern
Scotland were composed of the clans – powerful aristocratic landowners
and their families and peasants such as the Macdonalds and Campbells,
who practically ruled their respective territories from large houses and
manors and who had great influence in the towns which they oversaw. They
were the chief supporters of the Stuarts and had their own (although as
we shall see it was later augmented) distinctive culture. The southerly
lowlanders were much more like their English neighbours – living
relatively freely in towns and cities and on the land with their own
lords and earls and knowing little of the highland culture or politics.
Prior to 1745 most of the highlanders viewed the Union with contempt,
while the lowlanders had mixed feelings. Some of the bourgeoisie
supported the increased opportunities for trade and advancement, while
others resented the loss of some of their independence, and many who
went south found their opportunities limited because of discrimination
against the Scots.
After the uprising of 1745 the Highlanders, who had formed the majority
of the Prince’s army, were scattered and lost much of their power and
influence. The private jurisdictions of the clan chieftains were
abolished and replaced by the power of the king. The wearing of tartans
and kilts was banned except in the army and the Highland culture was
shunned as being backwards, feudal, rough and unrefined, as indeed many
Lowlanders and Sassenachs had always thought. Episcopalian clergymen
were required to take new oaths of allegiance to the king. Nonetheless
with the demise of Jacobitism and the advent of the Union thousands of
Scots, mainly Lowlanders, poured into England and took up numerous
positions in politics, civil service, the army and navy, trade,
economics, colonial enterprises and other areas. Neil Davidson notes
that “after 1746 there was an entirely new level of participation by
Scots in political life, particularly outside Scotland.” In 1762 the
Scot John Stuart, the 3rd Earl of Bute was appointed as first lord of
the treasury, basically the role of prime minister and the first
Scotsman to be appointed to the position. Bute was only the tip of the
iceberg, as Scots took up important positions all over the empire.
Alexander Wedderburn was appointed Attorney-General in 1780. Then there
was Henry Dundas, who held a number of important positions during the
late 18th-early 19th Centuries such as home secretary, secretary at war
and first lord of the admiralty and who came to dominate Scottish
politics in his time. Scots MPs also served abroad – in the period
1790-1820 a staggering 130 Scots were MPs representing seats in England
and Wales.
The ever increasing British Empire presented many opportunities to
enterprising Scots and this people, who appeared to be on the whole more
adventurous than the English, took advantage of these. The English
picked up most of the best posts at home and generally were on the whole
reluctant to travel abroad, meaning that many of the English in the
colonies were second rate men. By contrast the Scots, who often came
from poorer and less established backgrounds and who were at times as
much outsiders in England as anywhere else in the empire, were far more
willing to travel and take risks in amassing wealth, promotions and
prosperity in the far reaches of the empire. This meant that many more
talented Scots were available than their English counterparts and many
of them made full use of this advantage. Scots could be found all over
the empire, from India to Canada to Australia and New Zealand. A Scot
from a prominent Jacobite family named James Murray became the first
British governor of Quebec. John Murray was governor of New York in
1770, while in India Scots such as George Bogle had important posts and
positions. Indeed British Bengal was flooded with Scots – some 60% of
the free merchants were Scotsmen.
There was considerable backlash against this influx of Scots. This
resistance was led by John Wilkes. Wilkes was born in London in 1725 and
was a thorough rouge yet also a fervent patriot of England. He was at
times involved in trade, was an author and a MP. Wilkes firmly supported
whiggism and hated the Scots and was outraged as what he saw as the
Scottish takeover of the English administration. Whiggism was an English
political and historical ideology that saw English history as the
progression of a strong ethnocentricity based on Protestantism, an
ancient constitution, limited monarchy and a special and expanding place
for England in the world. In contemporary politics Whigs supported
policies that upheld these principles and continued their progression
and improvement. There was also Scottish Whiggism, based around a
Presbyterian-aristocratic ideology. Wilkes scorned the concept of ‘Great
Britain’ and felt that the Scots “unchangeably alien, never ever to be
confused or integrated with the English.” Wilkes and his followers,
called Wilkites, sought to protect the great building blocks of England
– the Protestant succession, the revolution of 1688, the Magna Carta and
English freedoms – the great elements of English whiggism, all of which
they felt to be under threat in the 1760’s by a rising sense of
Britishness. The Wilkites argued that the Scots were politically
dangerous. They had a taste for arbitrary power and rule – had not the
hated Stuarts come from Scotland? Their lords were tyrants while the
common people were slaves and passively obedient to their masters. The
march of the highlanders in 1745 burned freshly in peoples’ minds. With
such attitudes history and upbringings, how long would it be before they
infected and threatened the building blocks of England? Numerous
cartoons such as A View of the Origin of Scotch Ministers & Managers
depicted the flocking of Scots to England with bad or evil intentions
and a tendency to scratch each others’ backs. Wilkes wrote that “no Scot
ever exerted himself but for a Scot.” Protests and rallies were heard
across England - “more opportunities for Scots meant fewer perks for
Englishmen.” Wilkes himself was furious that he had lost his attempt to
become first British governor of Quebec to James Murray. However
Scotophobia, while an important force in England, could not impede the
course of events. With the influx of Scots, their rights and place as
British citizens and the viewing of Scotland as an important ally backed
by the crown and the chief ministers, the importance of Scots in England
the rise of Britishness continued and flourished into the 19th Century,
aside from the occasional discrimination against Scots seeking
promotions in the heart of the civil establishment, as noted above.
Throughout the second half of the 18th Century only the army, a few
societies and some proud Highlanders kept the Highland tradition and
culture alive. Chief among these was the Highland Society of London,
founded in 1777. The Disarming Act which had banned the wearing of any
of the traditional Highland garb was repealed in 1782 largely through
the efforts of this society. Throughout that time a slow current of
revival had begun, and in the 1820’s the Highland culture exploded back
onto the scene and gained unprecedented popularity. The curious thing
was that the tradition that found prominence would have been almost
unrecognisable to the Highlanders of 150 years before. It all began with
James Macpherson. He was a poet and scholar and a member of one of the
great Jacobite clans and he took a great interest in ancients Scots
Celtic works. In 1760 he published Fragments of Ancient Poetry,
collected in the Highlands of Scotland, and translated from the Gaelic
or Erse Language. This was followed in 1762 by Fingal and then Temora in
1763, both of which were complete epic poems. Macpherson claimed that
they had all been written by a Celtic bard named Ossian in the 3rd Cen.
AD. Here were Scottish epics to rival the Iliad which proved that the
ancient Celtic culture had been culturally sophisticated and colourful.
However their true nature and authenticity has been debated ever since.
These poems undoubtedly contain information relevant to Macpherson’s own
time. Macpherson retained his Jacobite sympathies throughout his life,
but he thought that Jacobitism was lost, confined to a past in which the
old Celtic highland spirit lived on. The poems reflect this. They
picture a Gaelic world in which the old order of the warriors and
heroes, the spirit, romanticism and traditions of the people, of a
pre-modern life without corruption, are all falling, never to rise again
– a romantic world. Yet they depict that the spirit and tradition of
those times will continue as an “assertion by the ancient civilisation
of the North of the triumph of mind and spirit over the seedy world of
Hanoverian commerce and imperialism.” The analogies with the current
times, less than twenty years after the final fall of the Jacobite cause
and the Highlands were subtle yet clear to those who knew their history
and politics. Yet it was an assertion of the spirit only – the legacy of
the ‘noble savage’ ancestors, and not one that impacted on the
contemporary world or Britishness. Nevertheless it seems likely that
Macpherson really did collect a large amount of old Gaelic poems from a
wide range of places and times, and that he edited and rewrote them as
he saw fit to promote his message of the nobility of the old
Caledonians, their loss and the endurance of their tradition. Even
though their were early claims of forgery against Macpherson, the
Ossianic poems turned out to be a great success across Europe and were
one of the first significant works of the Romantic movement. Mighty
figures such as Goethe and Napoleon were fascinated by Ossian.
No one had a greater influence over the recreation of the Highlands that
Sir Walter Scott, the famous Lowland Scottish novelist. Scott fully
supported the Union. He believed that it would heal the divides between
the Scottish people and offer new horizons to them, and he actively set
about seeing that this was achieved. Scot had some sympathy with
Jacobitism and indeed he went on to record it as representing Scottish
national feeling as a whole. Yet he saw it as a romantic past, in a
similar way to Macpherson – a time of primitive emotion, passion,
excitement, heroics and old traditions and an allegiance gained by the
seductive Stuart charisma. He described it as having been overtaken by
the new rationalism and advancement of a United Britain and its
government, a process through which it inevitably had to go. Scott
largely ignored the radical politics of the Jacobites and the cruel
suppression of them and the highlands by the Hanoverians. He confines
Jacobite politics, indeed Scotland’s history as a whole, to the emotive
past, with no place in the rational present or future. Scott thus
stripped it of its political elements and any active role in the future,
confining it to a common Scottish past which one could be proud of and
yet which had no bearing on the present world. Furthermore, as stated
above he advanced the Union as being able to overcome the old
highland/lowland and other divides in Scotland by replacing its
nationalism and its efforts in one common and rational cause. His
Scotland was a “museum of history and culture, denuded of the political
dynamic which must keep such culture alive and developing” and thus not
relevant to the current political world.
The culmination of Scott’s beliefs and ambitions occurred in 1822. In
that year King George IV visited Edinburgh, the first ever Hanoverian to
set foot in Scotland. Scott made the occasion a ‘gathering of the Gael’
and the old Celtic world was everywhere to be seen. Hugh Trevor-Roper
argues that Scott was “imprisoned by his fanatical Celtic friends,
carried away by his own romantic Celtic fantasises…determined to forget
historic Scotland, his own Lowland Scotland, altogether.” While this
view may be a bit extreme, it is a good indication of what occurred
during that fateful royal visit. Celtic culture, dress, tradition, music
(bagpipes as opposed to the older Celtic harp) and poetry were all
celebrated during the visit, as Scott amalgamated all Scots into the
Highland tradition. This allowed him to further shift Scottish
allegiance as one whole from a Jacobite ideology to that of the
Hanoverians and the Union which he supported. The Highland Society of
London, in conjunction with the cloth manufactures of Edinburgh and
surrounds cashed in on the festivities by creating a range of separate
clan tartans to be worn by the various clans present. This aided the
restoration of the clan system that was abolished after the final
Jacobite uprising, although the new form it appeared in was somewhat
different to the historical reality. The work of creating clan tartans
was carried on by the brothers Allen, who in the 1840’s published two
books called Vestiarium Scoticum and The Costume of the Clans. These
works claimed to trace and identify the different tartans of the various
Scottish clans and their long history. The manufacture of clan tartan
clothes and goods took off and has remained strong ever since. In fact
individual tartans were only a creation of the 18th Century at the
earliest. They had most likely begun in the various highland regiments
in the army to distinguish them from each other and were then first
introduced into the civil world as recently as the instances described
above. While tartan in the Highlands does indeed stretch back to at
least the 16th Century, its patterns were usually only whatever was
available or which were the latest styles of the day.
The kilt too was a recent invention, as Trevor-Roper explains. It was
invented by an Englishman named Thomas Rawlinson, who had business
arrangements with Ian MacDonnell, chief of the MacDonnell’s of Glengarry
in the 1720’s. It was also adopted by the chief himself, and soon the
kilt was worn all over the Highlands, to the extent that it was banned
as part of the legislation after the ’45. Nevertheless its connection
with the Jacobites and this event was enough to make it the garb of
choice by Scott and the others who brought the Highlands back into
focus, rather than the far older plaid. Interestingly Scots Gaelic was
not seen as one of the key elements of Scottishness or even of being a
Highlander and its usage grew steadily less throughout the 18th and 19th
Centuries. All in all the Highland past and Jacobitism was thus stripped
of is political potency and retained as a memory – a past that was
uniquely Scottish and applied to all Scots – Lowlanders included - and
was something to be proud of yet was exactly that – the past. Current
events of great concern, even to the Highlands themselves, such as the
clearances of the first half of the 19th Cen., were mostly ignored by
such traditionalists. The past and the nationalism on which it was built
did not clash with a simultaneous allegiance to Britain.
War – especially with France, trade and conquest also helped by
‘othering’ people that were clearly not British, thus reinforcing the
common bonds between Scots and English.
With Jacobitism gone, the government harnessed the significant military
potential of the Highlands and Scotland in general – the Highlanders had
long had a reputation as fierce and devoted warriors. Approximately one
in four regimental officers in the mid-18th Cen. was a Scot, while they
also took an important part in home defence – 50,000 Scottish volunteers
were mobilised during the Napoleonic Wars. Abroad 25% of the Scottish
male population served in a military capacity between 1792 and 1815. The
highlanders in particular were dominant, with more than 48,300 of them
recruited between 1756 and 1815, while during the Seven Years War one in
four males were in service. Senior politicians commented on the merits
of the Highland soldiers. The Secretary at War Barrington stated in 1751
that “I am for having always in our army as many Scottish soldiers as
possible” and “I should choose to have and keep as many Highlanders as
possible.” Some years later Pitt the Younger boasted of his achievement
of drawing the highlanders into the armed services, calling them “a
hardy and intrepid race of men”. English generals also commented on
their prowess, James Wolfe noting during the Seven Years War that “the
Highlanders are very useful serviceable soldiers, and commanded by the
most manly corps of officers I ever saw.” The exploits of Scots generals
and highland regiments where the traditions were maintained, with their
kilts, swords, bagpipes and other ‘traditional’ highland garb and
equipment, became legendary throughout the 19th Century, from the Black
Watch at Waterloo to the ‘Thin Red Line’ at Balaklava and the Gordon
Highlanders at Dargai.
War with the French continued on and off for over 100 years from 1689 to
1815. The English were also at war at one stage or another with all the
European powers and numerous other peoples all over the world. As we
have seen in most cases the Scots fought alongside the English, forming
a bond with them on the battlefield. The highland soldiers began to
understand their identity as being not only Scottish, which was an
accomplishment in itself, but as British. The old divides between
highland and lowland, Scottish and English, were being wiped away in and
via the army. The Scots needed to feel that the risks they took and the
blood they shed in the army and navy was for a good cause – a cause that
served their interests and advanced and protected something that
affected them and which they cared about. This could only be achieved by
the belief that they were fighting for a united Britain whose allegiance
and nationhood they upheld. They thus became firmly linked with the
imperial ambitions of Britain and the glorious exploits of its army.
This connection went far beyond that as the peoples against whom they
fought were clearly unlike them, thus reinforcing the common
‘Britishness’ they shared. It was a case of ‘us’ against the hostile
undisciplined ‘Other’. The multitude of peoples that the British came
across in their travels and empire building only served to reinforce
this sense of ‘otherness’, especially those native peoples who were
markedly difference to the British. Linda Colley sums it all up well
when she writes that “they defined themselves against the French as they
imagined them to be, superstitious, militarist, decadent and unfree.
And, increasingly, as the wars went on, they defined themselves in
contrast to the colonial peoples they conquered, peoples who were
manifestly alien in terms of culture, religion and colour.”
The Scots shared with their neighbours a keen belief in Protestantism.
Even though their main denominations were different they were both
fiercely Protestant and very much anti-Catholic, or at least against the
Roman and papal influence they could spread via the Catholic Church.
There were great fears in the 1830s-50’s about the increasing influence
of Catholicism in Britain and what some saw as the increasingly Catholic
trends of the Church of England, known as Tractarianism. In 1851 Rome
divided Britain into separate dioceses for its churches and this only
served to heighten the fear and was seen as an unwanted outside
influence. Their great enemies the French were Catholic, and were they
not superstitious and unfree as a result? The growth of the empire
showed God’s providential destiny for Britain as the new ‘Protestant
Israel’ who’s mission was to spread the Gospel across the world. With
all this occurring and the rise of the Evangelicals across Britain both
Scots and English had great cause to be proud and supportive of their
common Protestantism.
Scotland benefited greatly from the empire and had much influence in it
– they were an active and in many ways equal partner in it. Great
intellectuals such as the historian William Robertson and the
philosopher David Hume were widely known and respected, while Adam
Smith’s An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations
was the first major work on laissez-faire economics and paved the way
for modern capitalism. Indeed the Scottish Enlightenment has become well
known, far more so than any corresponding achievements in England.
Engineers and architects such as James Watt became world famous and
there were also prominent authors and poets such as Robert Burns and the
aforementioned Walter Scott. Scottish universities were flourishing and
produced a wealth of people trained for such professions and also a host
of medical doctors. While in the 100 years from 1750-1850 England
produced 500 doctors, Scotland produced 10,000. Naturally many of these
went south and further abroad in the search for work.
Above all else, Scotland became an industrial and economic powerhouse.
Davidson states that “far from being the ‘peripheral’ to the British
economy, Scotland – or more precisely, the Lowlands – lay at its core.”
After the 1750s its economy expanded at a rapid rate – overseas commerce
growing by a significant 300% between 1750 and 1800. Various industries
such as coal and other mining, iron, steel, textiles and linen, tobacco,
engineering and cotton all flourished. Steel and iron were particularly
profitable. By the 1760s over 40% of British imports of tobacco came
through Scotland – more entered Glasgow than London, and other imports
also grew rapidly. Glasgow was also the biggest builder and exporter of
steam locomotives in the world and shipping was immense – shipbuilders
along the Clyde alone produced over 70% of all British iron tonnage
between 1851-70, with clients including the mighty Cunard who had many
of their great ocean liners built by John Brown’s yards on the
Clydebank.
Scottish towns and cities also flourished. The urban population doubled
between 1750 and 1800, Glasgow became an industrial powerhouse and
Edinburgh a modern, attractive city with a true blend of the Scottish
past and British present. Agriculture too continued to be important,
especially the keeping of sheep. As has already been noted, Scots all
over the empire ran or worked for profitable businesses, farms or
trades. The commercial empire thus opened up a whole new world to the
Scots and invited them to become a full part of Britain, an invitation
that many accepted with relish. This is not to say that the Scottish
working classes and poor were well off – in most cases and times far
from it, yet like their English counterparts they were proud of their
nation’s achievements and on the whole seem to have supported British
imperialism and culture. Were they not superior to the peasants of
Europe and the natives of Africa and Asia? The rough times of the 1830s
and 40s were the greatest test of this support, including the rise of
the Chartist movement, but things improved somewhat from the 1850s
onwards.
The Scots were also increasingly supportive of the monarchy,
particularly during the reign of Queen Victoria. New technologies such
as the train had greatly improved and increased the speed of travel and
the Queen and her family made numerous trips to Scotland. These were
popular and regal events and attracted many people. The two peoples thus
had another common bond in their support for a common ruler, largely
outside of the political and party sphere. Aside from the new
possibilities allowed by steam transport, the other key factor in the
growth in support for monarchy is what has come to be known as ‘Balmorality’.
This refers to the adoption by the Hanoverians of the Highland tradition
of Scotland. Alex Tyrrell describes Balmorality as “a form of Scottish
identity in which the Lowlands were elided from consideration, and the
monarchy took pride of place in a romantic, backward-looking vision of
Scotland as a society that was characterised by clan-based hierarchical
loyalties and distinctive Highland rituals.” Victoria and Albert had an
increasing interest in the Highlands and they openly supported the
Highland history and culture of Scotland as it was described by the
likes of Scott and Macpherson. This was much loved by the populace and
the monarchy became very popular in Scotland – it became in many ways
‘their’ monarchy far more than under any previous Hanoverian rulers. By
playing up to the Highland tradition, the monarchy managed to largely
avoid becoming involved in contemporary political problems in Scotland,
they achieved the shift of the old Scottish familiarity with monarchy
from the Stuarts to themselves and they helped to uphold Scottish
conservatism by recalling the times when the chiefs and aristocrats had
supposedly been respected and revered figures. This was aided by the
restoring in a renewed form of the old clan system which had been
crippled after the ’45, as noted above.
In conclusion, we have seen how the Scots were able to integrate
themselves into Britain yet retain their sense of being Scots. A
combination of a retained semi-independence, a tendency to stick
together and a questionable yet highly popular tradition forged from a
deep Highland past, gave the Scots a sense of their own national
identity that went beyond being a Highlander or Lowlander. Yet this did
not interfere with or prevent them from actively joining Britain. The
possibilities and activities of Britain and above all the empire gave
the Scots access to the world and the English allowed them this access.
Their commonality with the English was reinforced through war, trade and
conquest as the multitude of other peoples whom they met were othered in
one way or another. This strengthened the bonds of law, religion –
especially Protestantism, ideology and customs that they shared. Finally
the monarchy came to be accepted in Scotland and was a unifying force
for both peoples. The Scots could be both Scottish and British at the
same time – it was to be one of the most successful partnerships the
world has ever seen.
Famous Scots and their non Scottish
connections...
Adam Smith
Philosopher, Political Scientist, Journalist, Educator, Scholar,
Economist(c. 1723–1790)
Scottish social philosopher and political economist Adam Smith wrote The
Wealth of Nations and achieved the first comprehensive system of
political economy.
While his exact date of birth isn’t known, Adam Smith’s baptism was
recorded on June 5, 1723, in Kirkcaldy, Scotland. He attended the Burgh
School, where he studied Latin, mathematics, history and writing. Smith
entered the University of Glasgow when he was 14 and in 1740 went to
Oxford.
In 1748, Adam Smith began giving a series of public lectures at the
University of Edinburgh. Through these lectures, in 1750 he met and
became lifelong friends with Scottish philosopher and economist David
Hume. This relationship led to Smith's appointment to the Glasgow
University faculty in 1751.
Economics of the time were dominated by the idea that a country’s wealth
was best measured by its store of gold and silver. Smith proposed that a
nation’s wealth should be judged not by this metric but by the total of
its production and commerce—today known as gross domestic product (GDP).
He also explored theories of the division of labor, an idea dating back
to Plato, through which specialization would lead to a qualitative
increase in productivity.
David Hume
The most important philosopher ever to write in English. He travelled
extensively around Europe.
Alexander Graham Bell
On one of his trips to America, Alexander’s father discovered its
healthier environment and decided to move the family there. At first,
Alexander resisted, for he was establishing himself in London, but
eventually relented after both his brothers had succumbed to
tuberculosis. In July, 1870, the family settled in Brantford, Ontario,
Canada. There, Alexander set up a workshop to continue his study of the
human voice.
Enlightenment
European politics, philosophy, science and communications were radically
reoriented during the course of the “long 18th century” (1685-1815) as
part of a movement referred to by its participants as the Age of Reason,
or simply the Enlightenment. Enlightenment thinkers in Britain, in
France and throughout Europe questioned traditional authority and
embraced the notion that humanity could be improved through rational
change. The Enlightenment produced numerous books, essays, inventions,
scientific discoveries, laws, wars and revolutions. The American and
French Revolutions were directly inspired by Enlightenment ideals and
respectively marked the peak of its influence and the beginning of its
decline. The Enlightenment ultimately gave way to 19th-century
Romanticism.
Scottish Enlightenment
The conjunction of minds, ideas, and publications in Scotland during the
whole of the second half of the 18th century and extending over several
decades on either side of that period. Contemporaries referred to
Edinburgh as a “hotbed of genius.” Voltaire in 1762 wrote in
characteristically provocative fashion that “today it is from Scotland
that we get rules of taste in all the arts, from epic poetry to
gardening,” and Benjamin Franklin caught the mood of the place in his
Autobiography (1794): “Persons of good Sense…seldom fall into
[disputation], except Lawyers, University Men, and Men of all Sorts that
have been bred at Edinburgh.”
Read this article at
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scottish-Enlightenment and then
wonder where the Scots of today fit in and ask yourself where are the
Scots that can shape a new Scotland in the world. Ask yourself also what
you are doing to help Scotland and not just yourself. Like have you
tried to understand the issues around Independence have you tried to
check the facts handed out by the politicians? And if not why not?
What have you done to
suggest ways forward for Scotland given that we seem to be having issues
with our economy and also our devolved powers to run education, health
and our justice system. And then why even discuss exports as it's
clear we don't export nearly enough especially when the vast majority of
Scots don't even think exporting to England and the rUK are considered
exports at all.
My own
take on the state of the Scottish SNP Government
Alastair McIntyre 4th March 2021
Scottish independence – playing by EU rules
By David Blake 04/04/2021
Professor David Blake argues that the SNP want to give back control to
the EU (not a slogan they are likely to use)
It’s
time to talk to the neighbours
What about the neighbours? We're a fractious lot, the four nations of
the United Kingdom. We're all facing the same daunting outlook yet
progressive thinking is hindered by divisions within and across border
lines and not at all helped by controlling top down rule of central
government. If the UK breaks up we still have to live with the economic
consequences of what's happening with the unruly bunch next door; isn't
it time we talked to each other? In this latest contribution to the
Sceptical constitutional debate, Glyndwr Cennydd Jones makes the case
for constitutional collaboration in a UK-wide convention. (pdf)
Scotland’s centres of power need reform: Part 1 (Westminster)
This is the first of edited extracts from Prof Mitchell’s must-read
lecture on the life of
Nigel Smith (pdf)
Scotland’s centres of power need reform: Part 2 (Holyrood)
This is the second part
A New Britain
Renewing our Democracy and Rebuilding our Economy, Report of the
Commission on the UK’s Future (Labour Party)
The Scottish Parliament:
Partial Success: Could do Better?
A personal assessment of the twenty years since the 1997 referendum
establishing the Scottish Parliament and some possible reforms by Nigel
Smith (2022) (pdf) |
