Страница 52 из 87
The Presbyterian elites of Lowland society had a massive stake in the union and feared a restoration of the Catholic Stewarts. Indeed, anti-Jacobite feeling was strongest in the most advanced areas of the economy. Glasgow celebrated the news of Cumberland’s victory at Culloden Moor. The Glasgow Journal brought out a special large-print edition on 28 April 1746 to record ‘the greatest rejoicings that have been at any time in the past’.
The Scottish literati also played its part in reconciling the Scots to their new identity. To them, the union was the key to liberation from Scotland’s dark and fractious religious past and economic backwardness. They rewrote the Scottish past, rubbishing it as mythical and in many cases beyond belief. But by rewriting history to suit the Unionist agenda, Scotland, as later writers such as Sir Walter Scott pointed out, was in danger of losing co
The solution was to allow them to be Scottish and at the same time British – a dual identity. Scottish identity was maintained by preserving the main institutions of Scottish society: the Presbyterian Church, the law, the education system and the right of Scottish banks to issue their own currency.
Political Management
What the English wanted more than anything from Scotland was security. After 1707, England expected peace and an acceptance of the Hanoverian regime from politicians in Scotland.
With the abolition of the Privy Council in 1708, it was up to a small number of law officers to administer Scotland. They reported to the English secretaries of state. Between 1713 and 1725, and again between 1742 and 1746, a secretary of state for Scotland existed, but generally it was the legal eagles who ran the show. If they couldn’t deliver the goods, they were removed from office – as happened to Lord Advocate Robert Dundas after the Malt Tax riots of 1725 (see ‘Economic consequences of union’, earlier in this chapter). Scotland was being run from London via a few willing stooges.
But even if they were stooges for Westminster, how did they go about delivering the Scottish votes for the government? In a word,
management,
a euphemism for bribery and corruption. The system of political management was run during the classic period 1725 to 1741 by Archibald Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll, and his brother John, Earl of Ilay. The first was a soldier, the second a lawyer. Both were born in Surrey and educated at Eton, and both were very anti-Stewart and pro-Hanover – a product of the fact that they had been made to watch the execution of their grandfather in 1685 by the last Stewart king, James VII and II.
With the Scottish Parliament abolished, there was nothing for politicians north of the border to argue and fight about except for a share of the spoils. The English weren’t interested in Scotland after union. Between 1727 and 1745, only nine acts of parliament were passed concerning Scotland. This meant that those put in charge of Scottish affairs were in a strong position to influence the politics of the country. After all, only 0.2 per cent of the population had the vote.
Given this situation, the Argylls used all means at their disposal to give London what it wanted. After 1725, the setting up of a series of quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations (quangos), such as the Board of Trustees, to promote economic development in Scotland created a great deal of patronage – jobs for willing boys. In spite of this, the Argyll regime only delivered 30 of the 45 parliamentary seats before 1741 and only 19 after that. It was a system still in need of perfecting.