Catholic Archives - Aberdeen Voice

Educate Or Unfriend? That Is The Question

Featured, Information, Opinion 6 Responses »

Mar 212013

Educate or Unfriend? That is the Question … or at least one of the questions to which Duncan Harley explores possible answers.

Unless you were a resident of that far off planet Mars, it would have been difficult to avoid all the media coverage regarding the events surrounding the recent election of Pope Francis.

The radio and television news fed a constant stream of comment interspersed with iconic views of the Sistine Chapel chimney emitting various shades of smoke according to how the latest voting had gone plus interviews with commentators explaining the secret voting process and providing background information to what is a fairly major event for the estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world.

The Catholic Church claims just over four million members in England and Wales and another 695,000 in Scotland.

Out of a total UK population of about 60 million, that means about one in 12 people in Great Britain and around 7.5% of the population of Scotland are Catholic. Significant numbers indeed!

On the day after the election of the new, media coverage of course switched to new topics such as the upcoming budget in the UK and the rather unusual decision by the Cypriot Parliament to commit economic suicide by imposing taxes on bank deposits.
The tabloids and broadsheets of course lagged behind by one day since the nature of printed news means that it is often out of date even as the presses are running.

Newspapers such as the Guardian ran with “Buona Sera, Pope Francis” as a leader and Aberdeen’s Press and Journal somewhat predictably led with “Crashes and chaos as thick snow sweeps in” under a banner reading “Hats off to the ladies” and “Fun times roll for Olly Murs”

All good informative and jolly stuff really!

Then social media sites such as Facebook began to fill up with posts referring to the new pope. Some were polite and informative, some were humorous but good mannered and some were very nasty indeed.

The first two categories I think are generally acceptable in that comment and humour go hand in hand with democracy and hopefully informed debate. The latter kind of comment is simply unacceptable in any civilised country. I suspect that the “unfriend” button on many folks walls may need replacing following unexpected comments by folk they thought they knew.

The UK and indeed Scotland have many ethnic and religious minorities and from time to time evidence of bigotry emerges against many of these. Immigrants, blacks, Jews, gays and Muslims all get the odd verbal battering from the misinformed within our population.

Bigotry can be defined as the state of mind of a bigot. Someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt and intolerance on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language or socio-economic status.

In an attempt to address such issues we in Scotland have the much criticized “Offensive Behaviour Act” covering football grounds, public places and pubs and clubs.

It’s difficult to evaluate the success or otherwise of such legislation, but at least the existence of the act recognises that there is, or has been, a problem.

In addition the UK press is now likely to adhere to certain standards when publishing news and comment or face the wrath of the courts. Leveson for all its failures in implementation has at least exposed certain segments of the press to severe scrutiny.

But what about the internet?

The net is an area largely ungoverned and uncensored. There are systems in place which allow censorship, and recent closures of file sharing sites point to the fact that where money is involved, sites can be closed down. The blogosphere in particular is awash with individuals and organisations commenting on anything you could possibly think of and indeed lots of things you had never even thought of!

There is a quotation attributed to Herman Goering which reads as follows:

“it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

If you look at the internet in the light of the above quote it should be clear that the ball game has changed big time and that the masses now have a very loud voice indeed. The London Riots and the Arab Spring have in their opposing ways proved the point that social media is a powerful force for action and change. Neither would have been likely to have gained momentum without the communication means now available to ordinary folk.

Gone are the days when a slogan painted on a wall proclaiming “No Proddies Here” or “English Out Remember 1314” was a call to action or intimidation and thank goodness indeed.

The laptop and the mobile phone can reach out across the globe though. It would be a shame if the folk who write and digitally publish poisonous and inflammatory content caused a contraction of freedom of expression via censorship.

The motivations for censorship can of course range from well intentioned desires to protect children from unsuitable content to authoritarian attempts to control a nation’s access to information. No matter what the censors’ reasons are, the end result is the same: access is denied to “unsuitable content”

Internet censorship isn’t just a parental or governmental tool. There are many software products on the market designed to limit or block access to specific web sites. Most people know these programs as Web filters. Censorship opponents have another name for them: Censorware.

The internet may be a crucial stage at present. Control of content is still largely in the hands of the users. However if we allow the offensive content to increase it is certain that censorship will increase and possibly at a very fast rate.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said:

“The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract”

But Ogden Nash said:

“The door of a bigoted mind opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly.”

I don’t know which view is correct but it might be time to reflect on whether to “unfriend” or try to educate the bigots of this world.

Sources:

Catholic Numbers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21443313 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11297461
Population figures: http://www.scotland.org/about-scotland/the-scottish-people/population-of-scotland
Offensive Behaviour Act: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/14/scotland-religious-hatred-football-law
Quotes: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21729-the-door-of-a-bigoted-mind-opens-outwards-so-that

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Old Susannah No. 113 – Politics And Religion

Opinion, Satire and Humour 3 Responses »

Feb 282013

Voice’s Old Susannah takes a look over the past week’s events in the ‘Deen and beyond. By Suzanne Kelly.

Could spring be around the corner? The weather is improving, a ‘the green shoots of the economic recovery’ (as the Tories used to say) are nearly as vibrant and dynamic as the blue-green dyed grass on Trump International’s 4th hole. Old Susannah has been taking advantage of the warm weather, and had a few lovely coastal walks recently.

On the 16th I walked around the Menie coastline with a friend from Aberdeen Voice. The Trump international people have accidentally locked a few gates shut, almost as if to discourage walkers.
No doubt once this is brought to their attention, they’ll remedy the situation.

I guess this will have to wait until the Maloney-Baloney honeymoon is over. Which it will be soon enough.

Elsewhere further down the coast I had a pleasant jog/run around the Torry lighthouse and Nigg Bay. With the good weather lots of people were enjoying themselves on the coast and at Torrymelinos. How wonderful it will be when the industrial harbour extends itself into these SSSI areas filled with protected wildlife.

We here in the Radon City can be proud of one of our environmental records which no other Scottish city seems to be able to match these many years; more of our city streets show up in the lists of top ten most polluted Scottish streets than any other city can manage. Result!

According to the latest from Friends of the Earth, Wellington Road, Union Street and Market Street are highly placed for various forms of air pollution. Well done. http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/news030213 .

As we know, that sort of environmental nonsense doesn’t count for much around here, especially if there are jobs to be created and money to theoretically be made (for a few anyway). We could have done even better if we’d have got rid of those old trees in Union Terrace Gardens and put up some concrete (sorry – granite).

Even further still down the coast, Old Susannah had another walk with a friend on Lunan Bay. It was ‘underused’. I’m sure it could be put to more practical use and made more crowded; perhaps a golf course and a few hundred homes would do the trick.

The area is rather spoilt at one end of the bay, as an old, boring red structure looms over the scene. It must have some health and safety issues, and probably should be torn down for a shopping mall. Apparently it is called the Red Castle, and in some boring old past time some guy named William the Conqueror built it (bad job, William, it’s falling down).

Then other guys named Robert the Bruce and William Wallace used it, too.

I’m sure people visiting Scotland aren’t interested in this kind of thing, and would rather shop and eat – let’s hope Visit Scotland and Scottish Enterprise can spend some of our tax money on a nice development study for Lunan, like they did for the Menie Estate.

Overall, things are just a bit confusing this past week in the Granite City, the McCote d’Azure (formerly known as Balmedie, now famous for its turquoise dyed grass), and the wider world. It’s hard to know where to begin with all the exciting developments. But I’ll make a start. Here are some definitions relevant to this week’s current events.

Inappropriate Behaviour: (mod Eng phrase) conduct which is beyond what is accepted in societal norms; often sexual, unbalanced and/or aggressive in nature.

They say you should never discuss religion and politics. At the moment, that philosophy would leave almost nothing to talk or write about.

We’ve had the shocking spectacle of people of the same sex in love wanting to get married. Thankfully, our most senior religious figures have been there to condemn this outrageous concept, leading by example. None other than the UK’s Cardinal Keith O’Brien was one such outspoken guardian of our morals. Well, until recently.

O’Brien was at first slightly tolerant of homosexuality; then he came out (as it were) against same-sex marriages. Now his behaviour is being called ‘inappropriate.’ O’Brien apparently had a more liberal outlook in his early days climbing the greasy pole of church hierarchy.

However, his views on same sex marriage included quotes such as:-

“The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical [yes, he really said that], emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships, we have failed those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wider society by our actions;

and apparently,

“Down with this sort of thing;

and,

“Careful now.”

O’Brien is now resigning because of alleged ‘inappropriate behaviour’ towards other priests. If Old Susannah understands correctly, this means he can’t vote for the next pope, who is resigning immediately (from a scandal-riddled institution), possibly because of some kind of scandal about to break.

I’m not one to knock the churchgoing or bash the bishops, but I’m starting to get a sneaking suspicion that there may be some flaws in the very fibre of the church. Whether or not he went around saying ‘Drink! Feck! Arse! Girls! Boys!’ is yet to be confirmed or denied. But it looks as if someone is up for a de-frocking (in an appropriate way of course – I think the ‘inappropriate’ in the church will be told to ‘frock off.’).

Inappropriate behaviour in the religious spotlight at the moment also seems to include financial inconsistencies, which if a group of men take vows of poverty while living in palaces surrounded by art treasures and wealth could just be a problem. I’m sure any missing money was just resting in someone’s account.

Inappropriate behaviour, sex scandals, child abuse, ignored abuse, lying, financial inconsistencies… these are not just the domain of the religious; the LibDems seem to like a bit of it, too. I wonder if a nice cup of tea would help. G’wan.

Inquiry: (modern compound English noun) 1. to examine a situation and learn lessons to avoid a repetition; 2. to issue a big, baffling report at the end of a few months’ of expensive taxpayer-funded testimony which clears the government of wrongdoing.

Nearly as clearly as the above situation, we have the case of Lord Rennard, and what the LibDems knew, didn’t know or suspected. Nick Clegg gave one of his straightforward interviews to save the day and let everyone know where the LibDems stood.

From his statement we can determine that yes, Clegg knew of abuse rumours, but no he didn’t really know anything, but yes, the police are investigating, but no Clegg did not look into it when it arose, but yes, it was ‘all a long time ago’, but no Clegg and the LibDems ‘cannot provide a running commentary on every shred of speculation’.

And they say the guy is wishy-washy and prone to u-turns.

He told Sky News:

“I understand there are many people who appear to want to act as self-appointed detectives trying to piece together events that happened many years ago, but the only way that we are going to get to the bottom of the truth, the only way we are going to ensure that the women whose allegations were broadcast on television last week are properly listened to, the only way were are going to establish exactly what happened and who knew what and when, is by allowing the two investigations that I established immediately after the Channel 4 broadcast to do their job and, indeed, to allow the police, whom we have now approached, to do their job as well.

“And in the meantime I cannot and my party cannot provide a running commentary on every shred of speculation about events which happened many years ago.”

Clegg does in his words ‘want to get to the bottom’ of the truth. What he’ll do when he finally hits rock bottom is another matter. Better late than never, though.

Still, with two government inquiries announced, we’ll have the truth in no time, just like we did after government inquiries into the sexed-up dodgy dossier that got us into the Iraq war, the mysterious death of Dr Kelly, the petrol pricing inquiry, and so on.

But as Nick Clegg helpfully pointed out a few times to the press, the scandal and abuse was ‘all a long time ago,’ (so it can’t really matter).

You have to wonder why the victims of sexual abuse just don’t pop down to a friendly police station and report abuse. What could be less traumatic and simpler than finding a sympathetic, understanding government institution to get swift, fair justice?

Operation Sapphire: (modern English compound noun) a Police initiative in south London to address sexual crime.

Result! A South London police initiative to help victims of sexual crime! No doubt they would treat victims with great dignity, understanding and offer support.

Or, as came out in the news this week, they could just tell victims that the police wouldn’t be interested in getting any justice, and they should just forget it.

I guess they think this is a great way not only to keep the reported crime statistics low, but also to save taxpayer money on costly trials and even costlier jail sentences (not that many rapists get convicted anyway). That’s what they seemed to think anyway, as they helpfully, sympathetically told rape victims not to press charges. Brilliant.

“The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said Southwark Sapphire unit in south London “encouraged” victims to withdraw allegations to boost detection rates.

“The Metropolitan Police said substantial changes had been made.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21586786

It looks as if at least one accused rapist who was let off the hook went on to kill a couple of children per the above report. Well, stuff happens. It’s not as if there is any reason to think a violent sexual predator would pose a long-term threat, is there?

Let’s face it, being a police officer can be stressful. I hope these victims of violent crime can think about the effect their stories might have on the police before they go around upsetting them by making allegations.

Back in 2009, the UK had the worst rape conviction rate in Europe. It seems some people in power might want to keep it that way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/

I hope these little definitions will help to give everyone the faith in our institutions that they deserve. As the ConDems will be the first to tell you, ‘we’re all in this together.’ Indeed we are.

Next week: a look at some great letters I’ve received from government branches, hopefully an update on the SNH’s plans to shoot 700 deer in Scotland out of season, and more definitions.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Grumpy Jack’s Corner No.7: Dog Day Week

Aberdeenshire, Featured, Opinion 1 Response »

Feb 282013

Duncan Harley reflects on Life, the Universe and Everything. A sideways look at the world and its foibles.

Went out for a Sunday newspaper at the weekend and bought the one with the front page article about the Scottish Cardinal who has been accused of inappropriate behaviour towards priests stretching back 30 years or so.
Big mitre, nice smile, firm lips and seemingly about to vote in the next Vatican elections despite the accusations.

I asked the check out man the usual ‘how is your day’ stuff since I like to enhance the checkout experience and am committed to lightening up the day for those in crap occupations.

Without any hesitation he commented on my choice of newspaper.

“Isn’t that Cardinal O’Brien,” he said, “the man that Stonewall voted Bigot of the Year in 2012?”

When the Cardinal O’Brien allegations were first public made, the Roman Catholic Church was saying that it was up to him to decide whether or not to attend the Sistine Chapel hustings. I could see the logic of the argument of course, but just for a wee moment my jaw dropped in complete amazement.

The accused was being left to make up his mind if he could continue in the role of representing the faithful of the UK despite allegations which would have landed that Saville man in police custody.

Today of course everything has changed.

The man has been sacked according to reports, such as that in the Independent on Monday:

“Make no mistake about it, Cardinal Keith O’Brien has not resigned as Scotland’s leading Roman Catholic, he has been sacked by the Pope and that is a measure of just how grave the crisis in the world’s biggest church has become,” says Paul Vallely.

The church continues to talk about ‘great sadness’ as opposed to ‘great shock’ and there are conspiracy theory rumours sweeping the net regarding the timing of the allegations. But when the chips are down there is no getting away from the reality that he was, indeed, sacked by the Pope.

Now, I hear you ask, what has that to do with a large plastic cow on wheels?

Well, not much really, except that from the perspective of the cow it’s all good news since it diverts attention from the continuing issues in the food industry.

What a week it’s been though.

Ikea have found horse DNA in their meatballs although, to be honest, I would have been more surprised if they had found wood in their bookcases.

The Papal hustings will now go ahead without a UK vote due, it seems, to a mix up about how church officials should act in private.
The government appear to have a sex scandal on their hands, although it’s seemingly not a government problem just a Liberal Democrat issue.

To top it all DVLA are now issuing driving licences to dogs, providing they speak English and can reverse into a parking bay without barking.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Finding Merlin: A Fresh Take On A Familiar Story

Articles, Community, Featured, History, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Mar 292012

Aberdeen Voice received an advance copy of Adam Ardrey’s book, ‘Finding Merlin The Truth Behind The Legend’. Suzanne Kelly read the work and found not a sword-in-the-stone work of sorcery, but a well-constructed case for Merlin’s being a historical figure – from Strathclyde. Suzanne explains.

‘Merlin’ is a very compelling work which attempts to unravel the famed tale of Merlin and Arthur.

Virtually every corner of the UK lays claim to being the true home of the actual historical figures which were morphed by time and embellishing writers into the heroic figure of Arthur and the magical figure of Merlin.

The emergent Catholic church played a significant role in what was and what was not recorded of the Sixth Century world of Merlin. If you are looking for a tale of Camelot or a mystical account of the age and its people, you will be disappointed.

If on the other hand you have some curiosity as to what forces shaped the era, who were the key players and what motivated them, and if you are receptive to new theories as to whom Merlin may have been, then you’ve found a great resource in this book.

The author has a legal background, and has the ability to conduct research on a wide range of subjects. Ardrey offers impressive, thought-provoking, logical theories and clearly explains the rationale behind his well-constructed conclusions.

He notes that spellings varied greatly and were largely phonetic; he examines literature and fiction from several centuries, and offers insights into what truths may be hidden behind allegory and myth. He takes fantastic tales of fantasy, strips away the clearly impossible elements and seeks grains of truth using wholly reasonable deductive logic. There are coincidences in his family name, Ardrey, and some of the areas he comes to research which make the work all the more personal and intriguing.

If as the author suspects Merlin and his sister Langoureth were born in Strathclyde, then he has also found many jigsaw puzzle pieces to support the claim. Explanations of the term ‘Pendragon’ are offered, suggesting that this was a title and not an individual’s name. The influence of St Mungo and his evangelical, ambitious promotion of the young Christian church come into direct conflict with the older way of life championed by Merlin. All this religious conflict was set in the age of constant warfare between the British people and the Angles.

If the author is correct then Merlin had a formidable sister in Langoureth, queen of Rhydderch; she was well-educated and powerful, and likely used great diplomacy to balance Mungo and the new church with Merlin and the old ways.

It would be unfortunate if the author is correct and a burial site which may have been Merlin’s was opened nearly 200 years ago and its contents are now lost. But I found myself buying into many of Ardrey’s theories, and unfortunately I think he may be correct on this point as well.

For me ‘Merlin’ was an absorbing, thought-provoking read; one I can happily recommend.

More Info – Finding Merlin The Truth Behind The Legend

Buy ‘Merlin’ at Amazon – www.amazon.co.uk/Finding-Merlin

Image credit: http://finding-merlin.com/

New H Factor Films Show What Humanists Believe

Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Articles, Community, Information, News No Responses »

Nov 152011

With thanks to Bex Holmes.

Aberdeen was one of five locations across Scotland where the Humanist Society Scotland (HSS) shot a series of short films to show what humanists believe.
The films cover a wide range of important moral issues, including physician-assisted suicide, sectarianism and same-sex marriage and feature more than fifty people – from 10-year-old Mellin Buchanan (Thurso) to 81-year-old Margaret Ferguson (Inverness).

The films can be viewed at the society’s H Factor campaign site http://www.thehfactor.org.uk/ where they can also be downloaded and shared on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Among the contributions in the film on humanism, Alex (Edinburgh) says:

“As far as I am aware, no humanist has ever killed anyone because of their beliefs”.

Among those commenting on physician-assisted suicide Catriona (Aberdeen) says movingly:

“We had to watch my granny die over a period of months, in pain, and wasting away in front of us when she’d told me years ago she’d had a great life and she was ready to go. Why can’t we afford people the same compassion that we show to our animals?”

HSS Convenor Les Mitchell says:

“We’re delighted with the H Factor films. They show that humanists are deeply committed to making the world a better place. Humanism is becoming daily more familiar in Scotland. But, although our ceremonies grow ever more popular, very few people actually know what humanists believe. In these films they can see for themselves and many of them may realise that, without knowing it, they’ve been humanists all their lives.”

The HSS is also inviting members of the public to win £1,000 by creating a new slogan for the society in an online competition hosted at the H Factor site.
http://www.thehfactor.org.uk/

Humanist weddings were made legal in Scotland in June 2005. In 2010 there were 2092 weddings led by Humanist celebrant, compared to 1776 Catholic weddings, making Humanist weddings the third most popular form of marriage in Scotland [after Registrars and Church of Scotland ].

The Humanist Society Scotland is a charity founded in 1989 and currently has more than 7,000 members. Christopher Brookmyre is its president and distinguished supporters include Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins, Professor James Lovelock and the novelist Iain Banks.

The Society aims to represent those in Scotland who choose to live a moral life without religion. We have a network of trained Celebrants who carry out non-religious ceremonies such as funerals, weddings, baby-namings etc.

For further information please contact:
Tim Maguire, HSS Media Officer
Tel. 0131 556 0128 or 07770 555 224
Email: media@humanism-scotland.org.uk

Aberdeen Group Main Contact:
Marion Richardson, Secretary
Tel: 01888 562 237
Email: aberdeen@humanism-scotland.org.uk
Website: http://www.humanism-scotland.org.uk

Blood Feud – Part 3

Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Articles, Community, Featured, History, Information No Responses »

Aug 042011

Continuing on from Part Two of Blood Feud, Voice’s Alex Mitchell offers the final tranche of his account of Scotland’s troubled and violent history. Last week Alex looked at how the fortunes of Clan Gordon changed in the turbulent times of Mary, Queen of Scots. In the concluding part religious and political tensions erupt, James succeeds Mary, and the ancient clan feuds continue.

Lord James Stewart, Earl of Moray, became the first of four Reformation Regents. He later became known as the “Good Regent Moray”, not least in contrast with his successors. He was much better equipped for the responsibilities of kingship than was Mary Stuart, but, being of illegitimate birth, was ruled out of the succession.

He could attain kingly power only by becoming Regent for the infant James VI, which meant that Mary had to be removed, one way or another; and Mary, now widely denounced as an adulteress, a French/Papist whore and a husband-killer, had already self-destructed.

But Moray himself was assassinated in Linlithgow in January 1570, aged 39, having been Regent for less than three years.

Normal hostilities were resumed. An attempt had been made to end the ancient feud between the Gordons and the Forbeses by means of a marriage between the Master of Forbes and Lady Margaret Gordon, sister to the 5th Earl Huntly. But the union was a failure, ending in divorce, and relations were more embittered than ever. Following a running fight at Tillyangus near Alford in 1571, the Master of Forbes went south to look for allies.

Whilst he was away, the troops of Sir Adam Gordon, the victor of Tillyangus, attacked Corgarff Castle with the intention of claiming it for the deposed Queen of Scots. Meeting with firm resistance, Gordon set the castle ablaze, and Margaret Forbes, being the wife of Forbes of Towie, and her children and servants, amounting to 24 persons, all perished in the flames. This was a conspicuously dreadful deed, even by the standards of those times.

Infuriated to the point of madness by the cruelty of this act, the Master of Forbes lost no time in pursuit of his enemy. He now had the support of the new Regent, the Earl of Mar.

Forbes advanced northwards to Aberdeen.

The Burgh was occupied by the Gordons, who received intelligence of Forbes’ approach and positioned themselves near what is now the top of the Hardgate, where it crosses Bon-Accord Terrace, whilst a party of musketeers were hidden in the hollow a little further west, now called Union Glen. These last were instructed to wait until battle commenced, then to attack the Forbeses from the rear.

The conflict, since known as the Battle of the Crabstane, on 20 November 1571, lasted about an hour. Finding themselves under attack from both front and rear, the Forbeses were thrown into confusion and were forced to withdraw, defeated, leaving some 60 persons dead and the Master of Forbes a prisoner of the Gordons of Huntly.

For the next 18 months,Aberdeenwas the base of Sir Adam Gordon’s operations in support of the captive Mary Stuart, held prisoner by her cousin Elizabeth Tudor for some twenty years until her (Mary’s) execution in 1587.

the last of the four Reformation Regents, the Earl of Morton, took a hostile attitude to the citizens of Aberdeen

Sir Adam Gordon subsequently fled toFrance, but only narrowly escaped an assassination attempt by the Forbeses whilst in Paris. Gordon had been given 600 merks to leave Aberdeen, which was by now shifting away from its traditional reliance on the (Catholic) Earls of Huntly in favour of the (Protestant) Earls Marischal, to whose stronghold at Dunnottar Castle the Burgh’s title-deeds were sent for safe keeping in 1572.

But the last of the four Reformation Regents, the Earl of Morton, took a hostile attitude to the citizens of Aberdeen, whom he regarded as “art and part” of both the Gordon Rising and the Battle of the Crabstane. In 1574, he imposed a fine of 4,000 merks on the Burgh and demanded assurances that, henceforward, the Burgh would be ruled by sincere adherents of the Reformed faith, which, in principle, would have ruled out both the Gordons and their long-standing associates, the Menzies family of Pitfodels.

The Battle of the Crabstane was so-called because there lay nearby a large stone, irregularly square in shape, known as the Crab Stane, which relates to an Aberdeen mercantile family descended from John Crab, a 14th Century baillie of Flemish origin. Not far off was a longer, more slender stone, appropriately named the Lang Stane. The two stones may have been march-stones (or boundary stones) from their Crabstone Croft. It may be that the stones were once part of a stone circle.

They provided the names for two streets now in the neighbourhood, Langstane Place and Craibstone Street. The Lang Stane may be seen at the east end of Langstane Place, i.e., at the south-east corner of the first house in Dee Street. The Crab Stone abuts upon the pavement on the south side of the Hardgate near where it crosses Bon-Accord Terrace, close to where the battle between the Gordons and Forbeses took place in 1571.

the-6th-earl-of-huntly-presumed-murderer-of-moray

The ongoing feud between the Gordons and the Stewarts flared up again in 1592 with the sensationally brutal murder at his mother’s house at Donnibristle near Culross of James Stewart, the 2nd Earl of Moray, son-in-law of the late Regent Moray, by George Gordon (1562-1636), the 6th Earl of Huntly.

Moray’s mother had a portrait painted of her son’s mutilated body, the famous ‘Death Portrait’, which depicts the ‘Bonny Earl o’ Moray’ as having been shot several times, hacked about the body and slashed twice across the face by sword. The situation was that King James VI had asked Huntly to arrest the troublesome 5th Earl of Bothwell (nephew of Mary Stuart’s Bothwell) and his associates, of whom Moray was one.

There was some evidence of a ‘hit-list’ of the King’s enemies. Certainly the King took no action against Huntly, who was never brought to trial, and in fact received a Royal Pardon a week after the murder.

However, after Huntly and his ally Francis Hay, the 9th Earl of Erroll, attempted a Catholic rebellion in 1594, King James felt obliged, for the sake of appearances, to have their castles at Strathbogie and (Old) Slains blown up; and Huntly and Erroll were forced to depart Scotland for France. But they were soon pardoned and back home, and in 1599 King James promoted George Gordon to the rank of 1st Marquess of Huntly and the major responsibility of Lieutenant of the North.

Unlike his mother, Mary Stuart, King James knew who his real friends were, and kept them close, to the occasional extent of letting them get away with murder. The Gordons had come through ‘interesting times’ and had survived, but they were never again to be as ‘gey’ as in the glory days of George Gordon, the 4th Earl of Huntly.

Contributed by Alex Mitchell.

Blood Feud – Part 2

Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Articles, Community, Featured, History, Information No Responses »

Jul 292011

Continuing on from Part One of Blood Feud, Voice’s Alex Mitchell offers up yet another slice of Scotland’s troubled and violent history. Last week Alex looked at The Gordon, Forbes and Stewart Families in the Time of Mary Queen of Scots and King James VI This week we see how the fortunes of Clan Gordon changes in the turbulent times of Mary, Queen of Scots.

The Gordons, for their part, held back until the Earl of Huntly was ‘put to the horn’ or outlawed and rendered fugitive on a trumped-up charge of refusing to answer a summons from the Protestant-dominated Privy Council, of which he was still a member.

Huntly marched towards Aberdeenwith a force of about 1,000 men, almost all of them Gordon kinsfolk and dependents; no other gentry families joined his campaign to ‘rescue’ the Queen.

He mistakenly believed that many of the Queen’s troops would join his side.

He took up a commanding position on the Hill of Fare, near Banchory, but his men melted away. His troops, now reduced to about 500, were assailed by some 2,000 men under the command of the Earls of Moray, Morton and Athole, and were forced down on to the swampy field next to the Corrichie Burn.
The Earl of Huntly, aged 50, corpulent and in poor health, and suffocated by his heavy armour, suffered a heart attack or stroke, and dropped down off his horse, dead.

Huntly’s body was thrown over a pony and taken to Aberdeen, where it was put in the Tolbooth and gutted, salted and pickled. The body was then taken by sea to Edinburgh, where it was given a more comprehensive embalming. After lying unburied in the Abbey of Holyrood for some six months, the mummified corpse of the one-time Cock o’ the North was brought in its coffin before the Scottish Parliament on29 May 1563 on a charge of High Treason.

The coffin was opened and propped up on end so that the deceased Earl could stand trial and ‘hear’ the charges against him.

Those present included the Queen and Huntly’s eldest son George, himself under sentence of death, later repealed. A sentence of forfeiture was passed, stripping the Gordons of all their lands and possessions, which reverted to the Crown and were redistributed amongst favourites, not least the Earl of Moray.

The Gordon armorial bearings were struck from the Herald’s Roll and the once-great dynasty was reduced to “insignificance and beggary”. Huntly’s body lay unburied in Holyrood for another three years until21 April 1566, when it was finally returned to Strathbogie and interred at Elgin Cathedral.

It has to be said that Mary’s behaviour at this time makes little sense.

Two days after the Battle of Corrichie, Huntly’s son, young Sir John Gordon, aged 24, was ineptly beheaded in front of the Tolbooth inAberdeen, to the visible distress of Queen Mary, who was in residence just across the Castlegate and was seen to observe the proceedings from an upstairs window.

It had been rumoured that the Queen and Sir John Gordon were lovers, although this is unlikely given that Mary was constantly under the guard of the Protestant Lords. They had achieved their twin purposes of destroying the Gordons of Huntly, the leading Catholic family inScotland, and of reassuring those Protestant Reformers suspicious of the Queen’s own Catholic leanings.

It has to be said that Mary’s behaviour at this time makes little sense. She was a devout and observing Catholic herself, yet she acquiesced in the legalised persecution of fellow-Catholics and the forfeiture and redistribution of their land and property.

The assumption has to be that she was not in control of events, partly because she was young and inexperienced and was disorientated by her return to Scotland, a country she had departed for France at the age of five; but also because she was fatally uninterested in the processes and responsibilities of government, seldom attending meetings of her own Privy Council at Holyrood. The judicial destruction of the Gordons of Huntly meant that Mary Stuart had lost her most substantial and dependable base of support, and put her thereafter in the grip of her political and religious enemies.

414px-james_i_of_england_by_daniel_mytens

Mary Queen of Scots was made, probably unlawfully, to abdicate her throne on 24 July 1567, in favour of her infant son James, born 19 June 1566, by her second husband (and cousin) Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, from whom she was already irretrievably estranged. Mary’s effective reign had lasted just six years, and was over before she reached the age of 25.

The birth of a male heir to the throne meant that she had served her purpose, was now surplus to requirements and was in any case by this time dangerously out of control, having fallen under the destructive influence of James Hepburn (1535-78), the widely-detested 4th Earl of Bothwell, a Protestant, but intensely hostile to England.

The Queen’s remaining authority was destroyed by the sensational murder of her husband Darnley, not yet 22 years of age, at Kirk o’ Field on10 February 1567. Bothwell was instantly identified as prime suspect and the Queen as obviously complicit, an accessory, having gone to great lengths to seduce Darnley away from the protection of his Lennox Stewart relations in Glasgow and back to Edinburgh.

But how much did Mary really know? She would not have stayed overnight in the house at Kirk o’ Field, just inside the Edinburgh city walls, only two miles from Holyrood, if she had known that its foundations were being stuffed with gunpowder. To the end of her life, Mary Stuart was convinced that the plot had been to blow up her and Darnley together. This is unlikely, given that the explosion, which literally blew the house sky-high, took place after Mary had left Kirk o’ Field for Holyrood, which most people took to mean that Mary must have been party to the plot to murder Darnley.

But was she? And which plot? Or whose plot?

No-one as unpopular as Darnley was going to survive very long in 16th centuryScotland; but why murder him in such a sensational, attention-grabbing manner, when he could have been quietly dispatched back at Holyrood? Whatever the case, the ensuing scandal was hugely compounded by Mary’s subsequent marriage to Bothwell (in a Protestant church) on 15 May 1567.

Prior to all this, on 8 October 1565, Mary had restored George Gordon, the eldest surviving son of the 4th Earl of Huntly, to most of his father’s titles, including that of Lord High Chancellor, and some part of his former lands and property. This was little more than two years after the deceased 4th Earl had been found guilty of High Treason, his son George imprisoned and put under sentence of death, and his entire family reduced to “insignificance and beggary”.

Mary was presumably trying to rebuild her support in the North-East, but it was too little, too late. On top of everything else, the 5th Earl’s sister, Lady Jean Gordon, had made the mistake of marrying the Earl of Bothwell at Holyrood on24 February 1566. She was cruelly thrown aside and divorced within the year in order that Bothwell could marry his Queen.

Coming in Part 3: Alex Mitchell analyzes the changes sweeping through all aspects of Scottish life – dynasties rise and fall, clans battle for power and dominance, and religious conflicts dominate.

Blood Feud – Part 1

Aberdeenshire, Articles, Community, Featured, History, Information No Responses »

Jul 222011

Voice’s Alex Mitchell offers up yet another slice of Scotland’s troubled and violent history in the first part of Blood Feud: The Gordon, Forbes and Stewart Families in the Time of Mary Queen of Scots and King James VI

Following the death of her first husband, King Francis II of France in December 1560, the young Mary Queen of Scots, born 8 December 1542, resolved to return to Scotland.

Whilst still in France, she was visited by a deputation of Scottish Catholics, headed by her cousin, George Gordon, the 4th Earl of Huntly (1514-62). They entreated her to land at Aberdeen, where she was promised an army of 20,000 men under the leadership of Huntly himself, ready to protect her and convey her in triumph to Edinburgh. This would almost certainly have led to civil war between Catholic and Protestant factions in Scotland.

Instead, Mary chose to take the advice of her post-Reformation Parliament. She landed at Leith on 19 August 1561, and thereafter depended on the support and advice of her half-brother Lord James Stewart (1531-70), the illegitimate son of King James V and Margaret Erskine.

His two fixed principles were his support of, firstly, the Protestant Reformation of 1560, which sought to displace and abolish the Catholic religion, and secondly, closer relations with England rather than with England’s enemies France and Spain.

To these ends, Lord James insisted that Mary, herself a devout Catholic, should respect the Reformation and defer to ‘moderate’ Protestant opinion rather than that of Catholic Earls, such as Huntly and Erroll. In return, Lord James would use his contacts in England to secure from Queen Elizabeth recognition of Mary’s claim to be her legitimate successor. Mary was a grand-daughter of Margaret Tudor, elder sister to King Henry VIII, whose six wives between them produced only three surviving children, Mary, Elizabeth and Edward, none of whom had any children of their own.

Lord James Stewart favoured a middle way in religious matters, acceptable to mainstream opinion in England.

He tried to fend off the more radical Presbyterian reformers like John Knox, who intimidated the Episcopal Church of England. Similarly, he set out to crush unrepentant Catholics like the powerful George Gordon, 4th Earl Huntly, The Cock o’ the North, whose opposition was substantially based on his justified resentment of Lord James himself.

Mary’s elevation of Lord James to the vacant earldom of Mar in 1562, which he then resigned in favour of the earldom of Moray in 1563, both of which had been effectively under the control of the Gordons of Huntly, obviously threatened that family’s long-standing domination of North East Scotland. Moray then, of course, was a much larger territory than it is now. Lord James, for his part, was fearful of the stated intention of Sir John Gordon, Huntly’s violent and unstable third son, to marry the 19 year-old Queen Mary. That he was already married seemed not to concern him.

Aberdeen regularly paid the more powerful and aggressive of the local gentry families large sums of money

The Gordons had ruled the North East like provincial kings for about 250 years, having been granted the lands of Strathbogie by Robert the Bruce in 1307. They were an enormous kindred, with cadet branches throughout the North East, and prolific; George, the 4th Earl, had nine sons and three daughters.

The original expression the Gey Gordons (note spelling) is a reference to this sense of the House of Gordon as being literally overwhelming, unforgiving and dangerous. They were also rich, and lived like princes; the 4th Earl rebuilt Huntly Castle as a splendid Renaissance palace. He had been created Lord High Chancellor in 1546, being a trusted supporter of Mary’s redoubtable French mother, Mary of Guise, who ruled Scotland as Queen-Regent from sometime after the death of her husband King James V in 1542, until her own death in 1560.

At a time when Aberdeen regularly paid the more powerful and aggressive of the local gentry families large sums of money in the hope that they might then leave the Burgh alone, the Gordons were undoubtedly the family to have on your side – rich, numerous, widespread, possessed of great political influence and close to the Throne. Hence the close relationship between the (burgess) Menzies family of Aberdeen and the (gentry) Gordons of Huntly, to the occasional extent of inter-marriage. In fact, in 1545, Thomas Menzies resigned as Provost to allow George Gordon, 4th Earl Huntly, to succeed him, albeit for a period of only two years. George Gordon was the only Peer of the Realm ever to be Provost of Aberdeen.

There was intense hostility between the Gordon and Forbes families and their respective allies, the feud extending over some 200 years.

The Forbeses, as one of the few authentically Celtic of the twelve main land-owning families in Aberdeenshire, resented Norman-French incomers such as the Gordons, Hays, Burnets, Bissets, Frasers and Keiths.

They were now Protestant, and allied to the Ogilvies, with whom the Gordons were in a separate dispute. These were violent times.

In 1527, Alexander Seton of Meldrum, an ally of the Gordons, was murdered by the Master of Forbes in Provost Menzies’ house in the Castlegate. A Commission was appointed, but it reached no conclusion.

As described, Huntly and his allies had expected the young Queen’s support for their proposed Catholic uprising against the Reformation, to commence in Aberdeen. He and Mary were cousins, both being grandchildren of King James IV. But the Queen withheld her support.

In August 1562, Mary toured the North East in the safe keeping of the Protestant Lords of Moray, Morton and Maitland. They went out of their way to insult and provoke the Gordons, snubbing their invitation to visit Huntly Castle. The Royal party feared, with some reason, that the Gordons planned to capture the Queen, murder her Protestant minders and forcibly marry Mary to young Sir John Gordon.

On 27 August, the Queen’s party, returning from Inverness, reached the Kirktoun of Aberdon, lodging at the Bishop’s Palace in the Chanonry – the Bishop of Aberdeen remained in post for a good twenty years after the Reformation. In Aberdeen itself, the Queen was warmly received by Provost Thomas Menzies but, perhaps significantly, was accommodated in Earl Marischal’s Hall on the south side of the Castlegate, and not in the adjacent Pitfodel’s Lodging. Around this time, Lord James Stewart married Agnes Keith, daughter of the Protestant 1st Earl Marischal.

Alex’s insight to those turbulent times and bitter familial relationships will continue in future editions of Aberdeen Voice.

The Treaty of Union of 1707 – Part 3

Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Apr 152011

Voice’s Alex Mitchell presents the third and final part of an account of the key events which informed and influenced the Union Of Parliament between Scotland and England in 1707, and in doing so, impartially debunks some commonly held and perpetuated views on the issue.

The English certainly believed that the advantages of union would be “much greater for Scotland”, mainly in terms of an “Increase of Trade and Money”, and that England would gain from it only “the Security of its Northern Borders” and a “Source of Men for our Common Wars”.

Again, Seton of Pitmedden remarks that “England secures an old and dangerous Enemy to be their Friend”, and that, in military terms, England would also gain by “a considerable addition of brave and courageous Men to their Fleet, Armies and Plantations”, and that for Scotland: “We send our Commodities and Manufactures to them, and have Money or other Necessities remitted to us”.

The military aspect was certainly significant. The population of Scotland was then about one million compared with five million in England and Wales; Scotland thus had about one-fifth the population of England, compared with less than one-tenth nowadays.

Demographically, and in terms of its labour force and military manpower, Scotland was twice as important as a component of the British Union in 1707 than in 2007. In addition, a huge proportion of Scots had extensive campaigning experience in European theatres of war. The familiar image of “the Scottish soldier” rests on the historical fact that a great many Scots were soldiers, albeit in other nations’ wars. Thus, from an English military perspective, Scotland could be a useful ally, or a very troublesome enemy.

The 25 Articles agreed by the joint Commissioners were to be presented first to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh in October 1706, then to the English Parliament in London. Of the 25 Articles, which were debated and approved one by one, no fewer than fifteen were concerned with economic issues, of trade, taxation and industry, and it was these which generated the most heated debate.

The Court made major concessions on Scottish access to the English market, and later put through a separate Act protecting the Church of Scotland. The indications are, therefore, that the Scottish side fought long and hard for the best possible deal for Scotland, and for one which preserved distinctively Scottish institutions – the separate and distinct church, and legal and education systems – such that Scotland was never to become a mere province of England, a kind of “Scotland-shire”.

The entire Treaty was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 16 January 1707, by 110 votes to 69. There was a clear majority in each of the three estates, being the church, the nobility and the burgesses, that amongst the nobility being greatest. The mass of the common people were violently opposed to union with England, but their views counted for little in 18th century politicking. The Scottish Parliament had voted itself out of existence, and was formally dissolved on 28April. The new Parliament of Great Britain came into being on 1 May 1707.

This doubtless contributed to the patronising attitude of the English majority towards the Scots in London

In retrospect, the least acceptable part of the Treaty was that the Scottish representation in the new Parliament of Great Britain was reckoned according to the ratio, not of populations – about 5:1 in favour of England – but of tax revenues, being about 40:1 in favour of England.

This suggests that tax revenues per capita in Scotland were only about one-eighth of those in England, which may be an indication of how much poorer a country Scotland was relative to England in the years before Union. Taxation, however, did not need to be as high in Scotland as in England, for the simple reason that Scotland consistently avoided getting into military conflict with other nations. At any rate, Scotland sent only 16 peers to join the 190 English peers in London, and 45 commoners to join the 513 from England & Wales.

This doubtless contributed to the patronising attitude of the English majority towards the Scots in London, and the widespread belief, in London as in Scotland, that the Scottish nobility had not merely “sold out”, but that they had sold out for a derisory price.

In the end, the Union was achieved largely because the wiser men on both sides dreaded the consequences of failure, and there were the basic elements of a bargain. England, at war with France, could not risk a hostile Scotland under a Jacobite king, and demanded a complete, incorporating Union and acceptance of the Hanoverian succession.

The Scots wanted free trade at home and abroad. They would have preferred a federal arrangement to the complete, incorporating Union, but could not insist on it because the English were adamant, and they knew that failure of the Treaty might result in renewed economic sanctions, civil war within Scotland and the possibility of military invasion by England to suppress a Jacobite uprising in support of the “Pretender”, the self-styled King James VIII, or his son, Prince Charles Edward Stuart, later known as Bonnie Prince Charlie.

by this time the Union was largely accepted as a done deal. The centre of economic activity had shifted from east to west.

The economic benefits expected for Scotland took some decades to become manifest. This and other early disappointments contributed to the widespread support for the Jacobite Rising of 1715. But free trade and full participation in rampant English colonialism were of immense advantage to the Scots.

This became plainly apparent by the mid-point of the century – hence the comparative lack of support, especially in the Lowlands, for the last Jacobite Rising of 1745. And by this time the Union was largely accepted as a done deal. The centre of economic activity had shifted from east to west.

Glasgow was geographically nearer than any other British port to the English colony of Virginia and opportunities opened up in the trade in Virginian tobacco, Caribbean sugar and in the service of the London-based East India Company. Hence the spectacular expansion of Glasgow from the “pretty little town” described by Daniel Defoe of around 1700 to its (self-styled) eminence as Second City of Empire by around 1900.

Edinburgh, always a city of lawyers rather than merchants, had lost its Royal Court in 1603 and its Parliament by the Act of 1707 and was, to an extent, eclipsed by Glasgow; but its financial and legal expertise sustained it in the longer term.

Contributed by Alex Mitchell.

The Treaty of Union of 1707 – Part 2

Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Apr 072011

Voice’s Alex Mitchell presents part 2 of an account of the key events which informed and influenced the Union Of Parliament between Scotland and England in 1707, and in doing so, impartially debunks some commonly held and perpetuated views on the issue.

In September 1705, the Scottish Parliament agreed to authorise Queen Anne to nominate Commissioners who were to ‘treat’ or negotiate for Union. She naturally nominated persons sympathetic to that objective, thirty-one from each country.

The English Commissioners were almost all Whigs; the Scots mostly so, such as John Campbell, the Duke of Argyll; but including some critics of the proposed incorporating union, notably the Jacobite George Lockhart of Carnwath, who favoured a federal union such as would have retained the Scottish Parliament as a political institution.

However, the English negotiators insisted that an incorporating union was the only acceptable solution, that nothing less would secure England’s northern borders against foreign aggression; to them, a federal union was simply out of the question and was directly vetoed by Queen Anne herself.

Queen Anne was a Tory whereas King William III’s advisers, if not William himself, had been Whigs; the Union was essentially a Whig project. Queen Anne was herself popular and untainted by Glencoe and the Darien failure. She had, obviously, a familial affection for the Stuarts, being herself, as it turned out, the last of the Stuart monarchs; but she was strongly committed to the Church of England and could not for that reason support her much younger Catholic half-brother James’ claim to the succession. She could not form an alliance with the (Tory) Jacobites without effectively uncrowning herself. She therefore had to press ahead with Williamite (Whig) policies such as the Union. The clauses of the Alien Act which were more offensive to the Scots were thus repealed before Christmas 1705.

The Union of 1707 may be described as an exchange, or surrender, of Scottish parliamentary sovereignty in return for the benefits of free trade with England and her colonies; specifically, of access to English markets. The population of England was four to five times that of Scotland, and richer, with greater per capita spending power. The Union has thus been described as a political necessity for England and a commercial necessity for Scotland. The arguments presented for and against Scotland’s membership of the British Union were strikingly similar to the more recent debate concerning Britain’s membership of the European Union.

Over the 17th century, Scotland’s economy had become increasingly dependent on the English market. Half of Scotland’s exports, mainly of black cattle, linen, wool, coal and sheep, went to England; of this total, cattle accounted for 40% by 1703. The war with France disrupted trade with that country. There were severe grain harvest failures in the “Lean Years” of the 1690s which led to increased mortality, massive emigration to Ulster and an overall loss of about one-fifth of the population.

Although Scotland’s cost-base, mainly in terms of wages, was lower than England’s, it was feared that wealth would be drawn from Scotland to England

The failure of the Darien scheme in 1700 had consumed about a quarter of Scotland’s liquid capital. Scotland had no standing army and her navy consisted of two frigates. Scotland was poor, relatively backward and divided between Highlands and Lowlands, and suffered the many disadvantages of a semi-autonomous commercial and trading position within the context of the 1603 Union of Crowns in which the more powerful partner, England, was vigorously protective of its own trading and colonial interests.

The brutal fact was that, in an age of rampant mercantilism backed by military and naval power, the Scots could trade overseas only with English acquiescence and with access to English markets and colonies. William Seton of Pitmedden, who represented Aberdeenshire in the last Scottish Parliament of 1703-07, argued that:

“This Nation being Poor and without Force to protect its Commerce, it cannot survive, let alone become richer, ‘till it partake of the Trade and Protection of some powerful Neighbour Nation”

– and the only realistic partner for Scotland was England.

Free trade, of course, cuts both ways. Although Scotland’s cost-base, mainly in terms of wages, was lower than England’s, it was feared that wealth would be drawn from Scotland to England and that Scottish manufactures, which were often of poor quality would be unable to withstand competition from superior English merchandise – superior mainly in the sense that it was improving faster.

In general, the Scottish market accepted poorer, shabbier products than would the English or Continentals. The problem was one of low incomes, a stagnant population and a limited demand for luxury goods which Scots artisans could not produce or not to a competitive standard. Of the twenty five Articles comprising the Treaty of Union, fifteen related to trade and economic issues such as industry and taxation. Scottish interests were protected through reductions in taxes, e.g., on Scottish coal and salt, and various concessions were applied to Scottish exports of herring, beef, pork and grain.

It is often alleged that many of the Scottish parliamentarians who supported the Union did so for a variety of self-interested motives, were bribed and coerced, arms were twisted and so on.

Robert Burns famously wrote:

“Bought and sold for English gold … such a parcel of rogues in a nation”.

This may not have been Rabbie’s most insightful observation and it appeals more to a paranoid mindset than to historical fact. There is little evidence of outright bribery. More significant was a lack of unity amongst the opposition to Union.

The Tomb Of Adam Smith, Canongate, Edinburgh

In England, the final thrust towards the Union of 1707 came from Whig politicians who realised that, in a united British Parliament, their party would stand to gain from the arrival in London of Scottish MPs, most of whom would be Whigs, thus shifting the (narrow) majority in the House of Commons from Tory to Whig.

The evidence is, in both England and Scotland, of highly sophisticated arguments deployed by mostly conscientious people who voted according to what they perceived to be their best long-term interests.

Having said this, we do not have to go all the way with Adam Smith to argue, as he did, that persons motivated by self-interest may nonetheless serve or further a wider, national interest.

– Next week, Alex Mitchell presents the third and final part of this informative and fascinating story.

Older Entries