Berkley Center

I admit that prior to my arrival, my knowledge of Scotland's history was almost entirely informed by Mel Gibson's Braveheart. Since the Scottish were fighting for their freedom in the film, I foolishly assumed that Scotland became part of the United Kingdom after some major defeat to England. But, no such battle exists. On January 16, 1707, the Scottish Parliament made a decision to support the merger of parliaments resulting in a United Kingdom between England and Scotland. This decision, referred to as the Act of Union, did and continues to spark accusations of duplicity, but thorough examination points more to pragmatism. Reasons in favor of the merger included economic benefits, military alliance fears, and royalty lines, but one of the main ones was religious.

The complexity of royal succession leading up to the union is extremely interesting with its religious undertones, but makes one wonder how a union formed under such dubious circumstances continues to exist more than 300 years later. In 1603, King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from his first cousin twice removed, Queen Elizabeth I. Thus, after 1603 Scotland and England shared a monarch but were separate states with separate legislatures. King James II, a Catholic, ascended to the throne in 1686. He was dethroned in 1688 during the Glorious Revolution and installed as rulers were his Protestant daughter Mary and her husband William. Since they never had children, Anne, another Protestant daughter of James II, became the queen in 1702. Queen Anne had no more surviving children, so the English Parliament wanted to pass an act detailing a new succession line that would ensure a Protestant ruler. The result was the English Parliament passing the Act of Settlement 1701, which said after the death of Queen Anne, the English throne would pass to Sophia of Hanover, a granddaughter of James I, and her Protestant heirs. This act angered Scotland and in response, the Scottish Parliament passed the Act of Security in 1704. This act stated Scotland had the right to choose its own successor to Queen Anne. The Scots threatened to bring back James, Anne’'s Roman Catholic half-brother, to rule. England feared an independent, Catholic Scotland may renew the Auld Alliance with Catholic France against England. Thus, a merging of the unions was pushed for by England. The exact reasons Scotland’'s Parliament agreed to this is complex: one of the main reasons was to prevent economic disaster following both the Darien Scheme, Scotland'’s unsuccessful attempt to establish its own wealthy colonies, and the Alien Act of 1705, passed by the English Parliament as a way to compel Scotland to follow the Act of Settlement 1701. The Alien Act of 1705 included an embargo on the import of Scottish goods into England and English colonies.

Religion had a major influence on these two nations uniting, but today that reasoning no longer exists. The Scots that I talked to did not reference religion when talking about the history of the United Kingdom. Rather, they talk about the economic reasons behind the merger and that there were devious deals going on behind the scenes. They especially seem to resent that the United Kingdom is accruing so much wealth from the oil in the North Sea off the Scottish coast. I think this has resulted in a pervasive feeling among the people of Scotland that they should be an independent nation. This sentiment is manifest in the considerable influence the Scottish National Party (SNP) commands in the Scottish National Parliament. The SNP'’s main issue is pushing for an independent Scotland.

Now, the reasons for the initial union of the kingdoms may no longer be applicable, but there are no new pressing reasons to split apart. It seems the only reason to separate is because Scottish people are very proud of their national identity and do not feel much connection to the United Kingdom'’s heritage. Even though James I, the first king of Scotland and England, was Scottish, a fact most every Scot would be eager to point out to you, I get the sense most Scottish people have very little affinity for the current monarchy. This is in contrast to English people, one of whom told me, "We could never get rid of the royal family." They are a part of us.” The Scottish people are more fond of their kilts, haggis, Irn-Bru(Scottish soda), and ceilidh dancing. This Scottish identity would remain intact, if not be enhanced, following a split from the United Kingdom.

In 1999, the Scottish people did vote to establish a new Scottish Parliament that would have control over devolved matters such as education and healthcare. This Parliament has no relation to the religion-influenced monarchs of Scotland that reigned prior to the Act of Union. The Scottish National Parliament building, opened in 2004, is basically devoid of religious symbols. The building serves as a testament to the fact that their loyalty lies only with the people of Scotland. One of the many ways this is symbolized is that the debate chamber is directly above the visitors'’ center. I found the design’'s emphasis on the Scottish Parliament’'s mission to serve the people refreshing and emblematic of a government Scottish people can be proud of, rather than one to which they do not feel much affinity.

Ultimately, Scottish independence will come down to whether it is in the best interests of its people, and if there is really a sense among the people that reverting back to an independent Scotland is more important than any benefits that come with being part of the United Kingdom. The SNP is hoping to bring the issue of independence to the people in 2010. If more than half of the electorate votes for independence, this would not guarantee independence but would begin the process towards it. Scotland may have been joined with England in part to preserve Protestant rulers, but today the future of governance in Scotland will be based primarily on what is best for its people as perceived by the people.