Treaty Archives - Aberdeen Voice

NATO Debate In Aberdeen

Aberdeen City, Information No Responses »

Feb 182013

A debate on the desirability or otherwise of NATO membership will be taking place in Aberdeen on Friday, 22nd February. With thanks to Jonathan Russell.

The question of NATO membership became headline news when the SNP decided to overturn their policy for an independent Scotland not to join NATO at their conference in October.

NATO is a military alliance which was set up during the cold war in 1949 but has outlived the Eastern Block.

Since 1991 NATO has conducted military operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya as well as having a training mission in Iraq and deploying warships to protect maritime traffic in from Somali pirates.

Alex Johnstone is a North-East for the Scottish Conservatives and will be speaking in favour of NATO membership.

John Finnie is an independent MSP for the Highlands and Islands region who opposes membership of NATO and resigned from the SNP over their change of policy on NATO.

The debate promises to be both interesting and informative and should get to the heart of whether or not an independent Scotland should be neutral or a member of NATO.

The debate will take place at 7.30pm on Friday 22nd February in room 613 in the MacRobert building at the University of Aberdeen. It is being hosted by the University’s Politics and International Relations Society in partnership with Aberdeen Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

All members of the public are welcome to attend.

A Wake Up Call

Environment, Information No Responses »

Apr 122012

This is the first of a series of articles for Aberdeen Voice, to be written by members of the Aberdeen and District Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). These articles are intended to raise awareness of nuclear issues for people in the North-East of Scotland, as a part of CND’s wider campaign against nuclear weapons. These articles will also be going in letter form to Ministers, MP’s, MSP’s, MEP’s, Councillors and other key decision makers. Aberdeen and District CND will also be making suggestions on alternative ways of dealing with regional and global conflict. With thanks to Johnathan Russell.

For most of us nuclear weapons have been a part of the world we live in for all of our lives. We can as such often put into the back of our minds just how horrific these weapons would be if used.
As part of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and the New Start Treaty of December 2010, nearly 50% of these monstrous weapons have been destroyed. This has to be heralded as enormous progress.

This May the UK is participating in the United Nations non proliferation treaty conference in Vienna.

This is an opportunity for the UK Government, rather than to be involved in criticising other countries, to take responsibility itself by putting forward concrete proposals for UK disarmament.

The old arguments of unilateral or multilateral disarmament no longer stand, as the aim of the Non-Proliferation treaty is to stop new weapons being produced and gradually getting rid of the stockpiles that already exist. You could in fact argue that by building a new weapons system we are being unilateralist in going against the non-proliferation treaty.

The question for the UK Government and opposition parties is how active a part we want to play in the process of reducing our nuclear weapons with an eventual aim of having a nuclear free world. The renewal of Trident flies right in the face of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The United Kingdom can hardly expect countries like Iran (who are signed up to the Non- Proliferation Treaty) and North Korea (who were signed up to the treaty before President Bush called them one of the axis of evil) to not produce Nuclear Weapons when we intend to do the same ourselves.

We should at least be clearly saying to these countries if you do not produce Nuclear Weapons, neither will we. Or alternatively we could lead by example and not replace Trident which would have a considerable ripple effect.

Michael Portillo, an ex Defence spokesman for the Conservative Party, said on BBC‘s Moral Maze programme recently that Trident is no more than a prestige symbol which would not even be used if any major conflicts were to take place. Yet the Conservative Party, despite some honourable exceptions, are committed to replace Trident.

Of equal concern the Labour Party leadership at both UK and Scottish levels is supportive of the replacement of Trident. This policy continues despite significant public expenditure cuts taking place; and with polls showing that the majority of Labour supporters are opposed to Trident.

The opposition to Trident has always been strong in Scotland with the SNP, Green Party and the majority of Labour MP’S, some Liberals and according to public opinion polls a clear majority of Scottish citizens being opposed to Trident.

However, the countries of the old Soviet Union, (Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan) have become nuclear free. South Africa has set a great example by unilaterally getting rid of its nuclear weapons. Argentina and Brazil stopped their Nuclear Programmes in the 1980’s.

But failure to act on the comprehensive test ban treaty by leaders in the United States, China, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, France, United Kingdom and North Korea and to cut off production of nuclear weapons materials continues to put the world at risk from continued development of nuclear weapons. There are still 19,500 Nuclear Weapons – enough to destroy our world several times over. Nuclear power stations if hit directly or if they caught fire in a nuclear strike would add to the conflagration.

and yet at a time of severe cuts the UK government is considering renewal of the Trident system at Faslane.

There has been a growth in Nuclear Weapons of a smaller size in India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Under NATO the United States has nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, Netherlands and Turkey – in breach, many would say, of the Non Proliferation Treaty. The Middle East, the Indian sub-continent and the Korean peninsula are all areas where the potential for conflict has been heightening at a worrying rate.

Israel is the only nuclear armed country in the Middle East: their arsenal of nuclear bombs, though known about, is not admitted to. A climate is being created in Israel which is very worrying and could lead to airstrikes against Iran, even nuclear ones. In the background to the conflict between North and South Korea is potential conflict between the United States and China along possibly with Russia.

In February there was good news following talks between North Korea and the United States in Beijing with North Korea agreeing to halt uranium enrichment and the testing of long range missiles in return for food aid. This agreement has been rescinded following North Korea’s plan to launch a long range missile in honour of the 100th anniversary of their original leader Kim IL Sung.

The North Koreans say that the rocket is linked to their peaceful advance of their space programme but critics fear that the launch is linked to North Koreas nuclear programme. Both South Korea and Japan have threatened to shoot it down if it enters their territory. The unexpected re-election of the Conservative Saenuri party in South Korea further complicates the situation.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has recently moved their clock one minute further forward i.e. five minutes to midnight before when they think nuclear war could happen.

One of the main differences between a nuclear and a conventional explosion is that the use of nuclear weapons would be many thousands (and with the largest bombs held by the United States millions of times) more powerful than the largest conventional detonations.

The UK, as with other parts of the western world, is in financial and economic meltdown, and yet at a time of severe cuts the UK government is considering renewal of the Trident system at Faslane. Costs have already increased from £4.5 billion to £12.153 billion, and as with all procurement costs are likely to continue to increase. The BASIC Trident Commission supported by a independent cross party group of MPs suggests that cancelling Trident would save £83.5 billion between 2016-2062.

There will be forthcoming articles in Aberdeen Voice on the economic costs of retaining or getting rid of Trident.

The referendum about whether the people of Scotland want to stay in the UK or become an Independent nation has raised a major conundrum in that the SNP have pledged to get rid of Trident in Scottish waters and there are no other obvious bases for Trident in other parts of the UK. The Trident issue will be a major issue in the Independence debate which is starting to take place, and we will be aiming to raise our viewpoint at every opportunity.

Opinion poll after opinion poll has indicated that a clear majority of people in Scotland want to see the end of Trident.

If the UK gave up its Nuclear weapons we believe this would have a considerable knock- on effect, helping to rid the world of these monstrous weapons.

We need to make this happen.

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.

The Treaty of Union of 1707 – Part 1

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

Apr 032011

Voice’s Alex Mitchell recounts 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.

Recently, in 2007, we saw the tercentenary of the Act of Union of the Parliaments of Scotland and England.

The Treaty of 1707 was not the first attempt to unite England and Scotland. King Edward I of England tried to colonise Scotland in the 1290s. King Henry VIII embarked on another such venture, with his “rough wooing” of 1544-50.

Since the Union of Crowns in 1603, when King James VI of Scotland had succeeded to the throne of England, a single monarch had ruled the two nations, but this was not a sustainable situation, comparable with trying to ride two unruly horses at once.

The Union of Crowns made the Union of Parliaments almost inevitable. In 1650-51, Oliver Cromwell invaded and conquered Scotland, imposing a short-lived unified Commonwealth, with a single British Parliament. Scotland had benefited from the trading privileges this entailed, but the Restoration of the Stuart monarchy in the person of King Charles II in 1660 had swept all these aside, specifically by the Navigation Act of 1670.

The geographical proximity of England and Scotland made some sort of accommodation essential.

But English ministers showed little interest in a closer constitutional relationship with Scotland during most of the seventeenth century. Their position changed for dynastic reasons. Under the 1689 Bill of Rights, the line of succession to the English throne was limited to the descendants of Queen Mary II and her younger sister Anne, the (Protestant) daughters of the deposed (Catholic) King James II/VII.

Mary died childless, aged 32, in 1694, and her husband (and first cousin) William III, William of Orange, did not remarry. On his death in 1702, the throne passed to his sister-in-law Anne, whose last surviving child out of some nineteen pregnancies, William, Duke of Gloucester, had died aged eleven in 1700, leaving no direct heir.

The English Parliament favoured the (Protestant) Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover and granddaughter to King James I/VI, and an Act of Settlement was passed to that effect in 1701. It laid down that, in the likely event of Queen Anne dying without surviving issue, the English throne would pass to the Electress Sophia and her (Protestant) descendants.

The 1701 Act of Settlement was extended to Scotland as part of the 1707 Treaty of Union. To this day, only Protestant heirs of Princess Sophia can succeed to the British throne. Neither Catholics, nor those who marry a Catholic, nor those born out of wedlock, may remain in the line of succession.

In the event, Sophia died just before Queen Anne, in 1714, and thus Sophia’s eldest son George succeeded as Elector of Hanover and as King George I of Great Britain, commencing the long “Georgian” era, which extended until the death of King George IV in 1830.

But the English feared that the Scots would prefer Anne’s half-brother, James Edward Stuart (1688-1766), the Roman Catholic son of King James II, in exile since the “Glorious Revolution” of 1689.

A major factor pushing England in the direction of Union was her heavy military involvement in Europe, specifically in the War of the Spanish Succession, from 1702 until 1713. England and the Habsburg Empire were allied against Louis XIV’s France, which at this time had a population of about 19 million compared with less than 5 million in England & Wales, and the military struggle between England and France continued, on-and-off, until Waterloo in 1815.

The English feared that the French could open a second front by inciting Jacobite rebellion, threatening England’s security on her northern frontier. Thus in 1702, Queen Anne assented to an Act of the English Parliament empowering her to appoint Commissioners to “treat” or negotiate for Union.

Otherwise, Scotland had little to offer England. The Scottish state was effectively bankrupt.

English ministers suspected that Scotland would be a financial liability; that the country would cost more to administer, police and defend than could be raised from it in tax revenues. And although England and Scotland were both Protestant countries, opposed in terms of religion to Catholic France, it was feared by English Tories that the more radical elements within Scottish Presbyterianism would have a destabilising effect on the (Episcopalian) Church of England, with its hierarchical structure of bishops and archbishops, appointed by the Monarch.

From a Scottish perspective, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun favoured “nearer union with our neighbours of England”, but in terms of a federal union in which Scotland and England would retain their own Parliaments. He feared the loss of sovereignty an incorporating union would involve.

The Scottish Parliament passed a succession of Acts deemed contrary to English interests, notably the Act anent (concerning) Peace and War

Scottish opinion turned against union in the period after 1689, mainly because of the Glencoe massacre in 1692 and the failure of the Darien scheme, for both of which King William III was held partly responsible. The abolition of the Lords of Articles in 1690 – formerly a means of royal influence in Scotland – transferred substantial powers to the Scottish Parliament, newly elected in 1703, which began to act with new-found vigour and confidence, adopting a position of aggressive constitutional nationalism.

The Scottish Parliament passed a succession of Acts deemed contrary to English interests, notably the Act anent (concerning) Peace and War, which laid down that no successor to Queen Anne should declare a war involving Scotland without first consulting the Scottish Parliament; also the Act of Security, which asserted that the Scottish Parliament, twenty days after Anne’s death, should name as her successor a Protestant member of the House of Stuart.

To England, it seemed that the prospects of Union were slipping away.

With her forces now locked into the War of the Spanish Succession, and unable to risk the withdrawal of Scottish regiments from the north European theatre of war, plus rumours that arms from France were on their way to Scotland, London took the view that the unruly Scots had to be brought to heel and made to discuss the twin issues of the Hanoverian succession and the Union of Parliaments.

This resulted in the formidable economic bludgeon of the Alien Act of March 1705, which proposed that, unless progress had been made on the twin issues by Christmas – specifically that unless Scotland had accepted the Hanoverian succession by Christmas Day 1705 – all of Scotland’s exports to England, being linen, wool, coal, cattle & sheep, would be embargoed or banned, and all Scots would be declared and treated as aliens.

– Next week, Alex Mitchell presents Part 2 of this 3 part account.