 |
The Treaty (or Act) of Union , 1707
What follows is the full text of the so called Act of Union 1707. The notes preceding it come from two sources.
Those notes in ( bold typeface ) are comments of Dr Ivan Bishop, however the bulk of the text is the work
of Mr. Peter Ross, a Scotsman who lived in the late 19th century in New York USA. [ Scotland and the Scots, The
" Scottish American " Office, New York. 1889]
His insight and illustrations offer an invaluable clarification of what this most undemocratic of treaties really
represents.
What Royal Scottish Burghs Said About This Demeaning Act in 1707
" Seeing, by the articles of Union, now under the consideration of the Honourable Estates of Parliament,
it is agreed that Scotland and England shall be united into one kingdom; and that the united kingdoms be united
by one and the same Parliament, by which our monarchy Is suppressed, our parliament extinguished, and in consequence
our religion, church government, claim of right, laws, liberties, trade and all that is dear to us, daily in danger
of being encroached upon, altered or wholly subverted by the English In a British Parliament, wherein the mean
representation allowed for Scotland can never signify in securing to us the interest reserved by us, or granted
to us by the English. "
1.1) Where did Scottish pride go and self reliance go ?
How did the Scottish nation lose its way and its pride? Westminster has told us for so long that we are incapable
of running our own economy and nation that we now believe it. The " Constitutional Convention ", a collection
of London appointed and approved lackies, comprising the same mix of Church, business and questionable politician,
would sell the Scots Nation all over again, in the same way as those so called " Nobles " and churchmen
did in the early 1700's. Read on, will Scotland learn from its past, or continue to believe that Labour or Tory
parties and this corrupt union can ever lead to anything but subservience to London?
1.2) " Braveheart " close to the truth: Englands armies.
The modern history of Scotland dates from the adoption of the treaty of Union. In fact, that historic document
must be regarded as the central point in the entire history of the ancient kingdom, for as we read the records
of the country's progress prior to 1707 in the light of its subsequent story, we find that every event led up to
some such treaty being drawn between Scotland and England.
So far as opinion in England was concerned, however, the idea of union was always associated with that of conquest.
Scotland was considered as simply a province somewhat larger than Northumbria, and its geographical position as
well as feudal ties and engagements, were adduced in support of the theory. It was long seen, although not often
expressed, that England could not fully develop itself while on its northern frontier lay a brave, watchful, and
ruthless enemy, in close alliance with France, and ready on every chance to cross the Tweed. The only way by
which this national weakness could be overcome was by crushing the spirit of the northern land and placing it under
the control of the English Government, a conquered province. From a southern point of view, and in connection
with this theory, no English sovereign showed more true statesmanship than did Edward I or " Edward Longshanks,"
as the Scots dubbed him. He appreciated the fact that it was absolutely necessary for the island to be under on
Edward's assaults on Scotland, beyond the fact that wise statesmanship showed the necessity of the two countries
being united, had no plea for their justification. The old fables of homage and allegiance, the contemptible spirit
shown by the nobility, the oaths of John Baliol, or the political necessities of the times, did not, even when
taken together, form sufficient warrant for the forcible annexation of a sister nation.
Edward's Scottish campaigns were characterized by excessive cruelty and destruction, and whenever a section
of the country was in the power of his troops he ruled it with an iron hand. But there is every evidence that,
after he had demonstrated his power to the people, he intended taking them into the English commonwealth on "
reasonably favourable and honourable terms ". This is the only really redeeming feature which the history of
his Scottish campaigns presents to us, and proves him to have been more than merely a tyrannical and bloodthirsty
conqueror. According to his arrangement, the country was to be governed by a lieutenant directly representing the
monarch, with the advice and assistance of a council composed of the nobility and clergy.( This still made Scotland
an English colonial output of course! )
The two named estates were, of course, loyal to Edward at that epoch, and would have obeyed his behests or agreed
only upon such legislation or enactments as would be inspired by him or which were certain to meet his approval.
( This is much like the much vaunted devolved partliament that Labour supports - it would do as London and the
London run Scottish office TOLD it. It would NOT be independent)
The immediate result of such an arrangement was certain to strengthen the personal power of the English king,
but its weakest point was that if, in times to come, the nobility and clergy became more patriotic, they had the
opportunity of weakening and harassing that power (No chance of this with a devolved " parliament "
in Scotland - both Tory and labour would make it vanish faster than snow in August if that body ever showed
signs of not towing the London line)
However, it was a step in the direction of popular government, a certain amount of gain, although useless for
the time. But Edward did more than this, for he gave Scotland a direct, although small, representation in the English
Parliament. Four barons, four churchmen, and two members of the House of commons were to form the Scottish contingent,
and these ten deputies actually did attend one Parliament in London. One of the two members of the House of Commons
represented that part of Scotland which lay south of the firths of Forth and Clyde, while the other was supposed
to be the mouthpiece of all to the north of those estuaries.
(True the Scottish are now over represented by labour MPs in London- but what of it? They are always towing
the line for London, for an English led clique. There have been 90 odd Scottish MPs for the Tory torture years,
what good has that done us. The huge majority of right wingers in the South of England merely sneer at Scottish
issues, now as they alway have and always will But the Scots did not take kindly to Edward's manifestations of
good intentions. The reforms which came to them on the points of English arrows, and as the result of cowardice
and selfishness on the part of their own national leaders, failed to gild or soften the yoke which the southern
king had placed upon them, and another rebellion burst it asunder.
(Now the Scots have been brainwashed into thinking they cannot govern themselves. How arrogant of Westminster
to say so, and how cowardly and naieve of the Scottish to believe it!)
Edward II. tried to complete his father's work, but the defeat at Bannockburn settled the question so far as
he was concerned. Edward III. essayed the role of his grandfather, but although he overrun part of the kingdom,
crowned a Baliol, and accepted his allegiance, his efforts bore no lasting fruit and Scotland remained as free
and as threatening as ever. After his time no serious attempt to subjugate the country by force of arms was made
by England, but diplomacy did not abandon the hope of accomplishing alone what it failed to do when assisted by
the sword. The marriage of James IV. to Margaret Tudor was hailed as a forecast of a golden era of international
peace and so it certainly proved, although not exactly as was expected; for on sea as well as on land Scotsmen
carried on war with England, and the battle of Flodden was the last event in James reign. But through this marriage
the great-grandson of James IV became the recognized heir to the English throne and ascended to it in 1603 as king
over the whole island of Britain.
1.3) James VI : King of England - traitor to Scotland
In Scotland, Until it became probable that King James VI would be the successor of Queen Elizabeth, such a thing
as a close political, indissoluble union was never thought about, or if it did enter the brains of some northern
statesmen they took care never to give it expression. As conquest was the watchword on the southern side of the
Tweed, so independence was the rallying cry on the north, and the heavier the blows of the English hammer the more
stubborn and unyielding became the Scottish determination to maintain the national liberty. Commercial union, except
to a very limited extent, was never attempted, for the ancient alliance between Scotland and France interfered
and hampered any efforts or negotiations in that direction. The Continent formed a better field for the buying
and exchanging of merchandise than Scottish merchants could find in England.
(Now we are here again, the arrogant English and those too poorly informed to understand, will stand by whilst
our links to a stronger trade Besides. the maintenance of close relations with the " auld ally " was often
necessary to prevent too unscrupulous advances on the part of the auld enemy.
When James VI ascended the English throne and became James I of Great Britain, the rejoicing in Scotland was
great. A Scotsman, a descendant of Bruce, ruled over the English, and fulfilled the old prophecy about the old
coronation stone of Scone, which had been stolen and carried to Westminster Abbey by Edward I One of the versions
of the prophecy was:
Wherever fate this stone may bring
There a Scotsman shall be king
and so it proved. Then the long war was over, the danger of the country being devastated or the towns despoiled
or burned by invading armies was at an end; the Borders were no longer to be a " debatable land " where
warlike weapons were oftener in use than agricultural implements, and where feud, foray, raid, assault, greiving,
rueing, and quarreling made up the daily routine of life. It was thought that the whole of England lay at the feet
of Scotland, and that the mercantile progress of the country was assured. With two such fields of operations as
France and England, the prospects of the Scottish merchants seemed to be of the most glowing description. They
would enjoy all the benefits of a complete union with England without losing one iota of their country's independence,
or without political interference from the new ally, and the national vanity was gratified by seeing a Scottish
king wielding the sceptre of Edward I . The union for which Longshanks fought had come to pass, but Scotland was
the victor
1.4) James VI : Embraces London - and forgets Scotland
But it was a dream. The pleasant anticipations had really no foundation, and the discovery was made that two
countries might have the same king without having their individual interests thereby amalgamated. Neither in England
or Scotland could it be said that the king was the State, although James VI. and his successor foolishly believed
that such was the case. In Scotland the first result of James' accession to the throne of England was the impoverishment
of the country. Most of the nobility followed him in his progress to the South, the court was deserted, the adventurous
spirits tried their luck in London, trade was dispersed, and instead of English gold flowing into Scotland,the
opposite was the case.
Scottish merchants did not fare very well in the dealings they attempted with their new southern allies, and
in every way possible the latter showed their contempt for their northern fellow-subjects. Scotland gained
nothing from the good fortune of the king but peace, and was a loser in many essential points.
Had James been a statesman instead of a conceited pedant, things might have been very different, but his notions,
practice, and policy, seemed rather to separate the nations than to draw the bonds of fraternity and friendship
around them. He affected to despise the Scottish people and joined readily in the laughter of his new courtiers
at their poverty and ignorance, compared with the wealth and wisdom of London and other centres in England
(And so it continues to this day. Rich " Scottish Lords " in the pockets of Westminster interest
groups, schooled in Eton, steeped in Sandhurst and left with attitudes that would make the Bruce and any Scottish
patriot sick to the stomach.) The poverty of the nobility of the North and their eagerness for choice positions
in the court of the British Soloman were in marked contrast to the munificence of the Southern barons, while the
subserviency of the Episcopal priesthood, as well as the semi-papal magnificence of the Episcopal ritual and churches,
were more pleasing to the silly mind of the monarch than the cold, bleak kirks north of the Tweed, or the haranguings,
disputations, criticisms, and fault-findings of the Presbyterian clergy. King James really did attempt in one way
to unite both countries, but his base of operations, interfering with the religious liberty of the Scottish people,
was wrong, and he adopted the old English theory of submission and conquest. He desired one form of religion to
prevail over the entire island, and the form which found favor in his eyes was that which obtained in England and
of which he was the supreme head. James had always been in favour of an Episcopal form of Church government.
In 1606, however, after he was firmly seated on the English throne, James got the Scottish
Parliament to pass an act restoring the bishoprics, and three new bishops: Glasgow, Brechin and Galloway, were
at once consecrated. From this act sprung the Covenanting movement, which made the relations between the countries
as severely strained as ever, and gave to Scottish history many of its grander and nobler incidents, although it
caused havoc and bloodshed all over the land. In the wars between Charles I and his parliaments, Scotland bore
her share, and the trickery of that king often led her into positions which her own devotion to the Royal House
of Stuart on one hand, and her love of political liberty on the other, could not harmonize, much less justify.
The people became divided between sentiment and duty, and the result of the division was that Cromwell completely
overran the country and reduced it to a greater degree of subjection than did any of the Plantagenets.
Cromwell understood the requirements of a real union better than the divine right rulers, and , after tranquilizing
the country by force, he put his statesmanlike ideas into action. His scheme of union was ratified in 1654, and
by it thirty members of the British Parliament were to be chosen in Scotland. Free trade was established between
the two countries , and feudal dues and restrictions were abolished.
(Its a pity current " Clan chiefs " who clear tennant farmers off " their " land do not
realise they are treating human beings like peasants 300 hundred years ago. Still, these " chiefs " have
the ingrained arrogance of the Southern English loving nobles from the Scottish 17th century)
Under this firm rule trade and commerce revived, public confidence in the stability of government increased,
civil wars and private broils were at and end, and the middle and lower classes were better off han they had been
for several generations.
But, as usual, Scotland had to pay dearly for her " whustle " The taxation of the protectorate
was excessive - often as high as ten thousand pounds a month, and the presence of English soldiers and some English
judges caused a feeling of humiliation to sadden the otherwise pleasant outlook.
( Sounds familiar. Its a gauling sight to see the " Union Jack " flying over Edinburgh Castle.
Its Scotlands capital, and this flag symbolises the continuing dominance and interference that London enforces
on Scotland. What is worse is the Tories admit they have robbed Scottish tax payers of 27 billion pounds (40 billion
dollars) over the last 18 years or so in tax.... what changes? They thieve as much now from the Scots as they did
300 years ago
The big question is, will the Scottish people keep their heads in the sand and keep scrambling for crumbs that
fall from Westminster's lofty, laden tables, or realise they have a strong economy and destiny to follow separate
from that interference.)
The restoration of Charles II dissipated all the good that the wise measures of Cromwell had inaugurated. The
Navigation Act rescinded the free trade privilege, Episcopacy was re-established, the covenant persecution became
bitter and cruel. The " Drunken Parliament " passed a law in 1662 which forced 350 Presbyterian ministers
to resign their charges rather than violate the dictates of their consciences.
The Sanquhar " declaration " of Richard Cameron and Donald Cargill, in which it was widly stated that
King Charles had forfeited the crown by his treachery, and that it was perfectly justifiable for anyone to kill
him or his brother and heir-apparent, the Duke of York, expressed the views of the most extreme sect among the
Covenanters' as to the cause for the terrible condition of things under which the country suffered. But all classes
of people were more or less discontented, except perhaps a few nincompoop noblemen and courtiers whose consciences
were as weak and whose debaucheries were as disgusting as their divine-right master's. Under the misgovernment
of Charles, the entente cordiale between the two countries was wiped out of existence, and such sanguinary
encounters as Drumclog and Bothwell Bridge made the question of union become as visionary as it was in the days
of James V. Charles' brother did not mend matters during the three years he was permitted to occupy the throne,
and the Under the guidance of Principal Carstaires the government of William and Mary commenced well in Scotland.
Episcopacy was again pulled down and what is known as the Revolution Settlement made Presbyterianism paramount
north of the Tweed. William probably intended to give Scotland a good and generous administration in which justice,
peace and civil and religious liberty were to be the features. But the wild although brilliant campaign of Dundee
showed him that the main hope for the security of his crown lay in England. His ignorance of the country caused
his administration to be disgraced by many mistakes, of which the massacre of Glencoe was the most famous
and most glaring, while his leaning towards England governed his conduct in connection with the Darien scheme.
William and his advisers, however, saw that such a condition of ill-feeling could not long exist between the
two countries without open warfare being the result, especially as James II and his son were in France, ready to
seize any emergency which pointed to restoration, and the question of a complete political and commercial union
became a foremost topic in the court.
(Beware of Westminster politicians decrying the European Union, they are more concerned about their power
being diluted than the well being of the people they represent. Sir James Goldsmith, multi millionaire, money made
in Europe is a noted anti-European, what does he and others like him know they will lose when all Europe trades
as one tighter knit unit?)
1.5) The English give their throne to the House of Hanover
Just as the English Parliament began seriously to consider the question King William died, March 8, 1701. The
death of the king was not regarded as a calamity m Scotland. William had died from the effects of a fall from his
horse, which stumbled on a mole-hill, and the innocent mole was toasted in Scotland very kindly by Whigs as well
as Jacobites as "the little gentleman in the black velvet coat " whose work had brought a Stuart again
to the throne.
But the accession of Queen Anne, although it pleased all parties, brought the question of union or no union
home to both countries in a very direct and importunate fashion. The queen was childless, and on the happy settlement
of the succession to the throne depended the future peace and prosperity of the island. Remembering the past, and
especially with the Darien fiasco foremost in contemporary history, the Scottish Estates determined to maintain
their entire independence of England. In 1700, the year before William's death, the English Parliament passed an
Act of Settlement, by which the crown, upon the death of Anne without heirs, was to go to the Princess Sophia,
Electress Dowager of Hanover, and her heirs. It was expected that the Scottish Estates would follow the example
of the Southern Parliament and pass a similar law, seeing that the electress was the direct descendant of James
VI., and that thus the crowns would remain united and peace continue to prevail.
(Now we have the Windsors, who, with a family name change, sit upon the English throne. Not an English nor
Scottish family at root, but a family whose predecessors murdered Mary Queen of Scots.)
But neither the Scottish Estates nor the Scottish people were willing to follow the English lead in this important
matter, and, instead of an Act of Settlement, an Act of Security was passed. This enactment provided that should
Anne die without leaving any children, the whole power of the crown was to be centred in the Scottish Parliament
until it had chosen a successor to her, and the said successor was to be of the royal line and of the Protestant
religion. The new sovereign was to rule only under such conditions as would preserve the independence of the crown
and the nation from any English or other foreign intrigues or machinations, and was not to be permitted to wear
the crowns of the two countries unless the Scots were to have equal trading and navigation privileges with England.
(Here we touch upon taxes that Westminster imposes on Scotland illegally, including the tax on Whisky production!)
The act also made provision for the raising of an army of such size as to make its requirements be respected
whenever occasion should arise. This act was favourably received by all sections of the community, and a general
sentiment in favor of entire separation from England was openly expressed unless entire commercial equality was
to prevail between the countries. In the South the act was regarded in the light of a defiance, and such it certainly
was, and several enactments of the English Parliament tended to widen the breach between the peoples. An inopportune
incident also happened just at that critical juncture which might have resulted in absolute separation, had not
the queens advisers acted with a degree of shrewdness which Englishmen had seldom if ever before shown in connection
with Scotch affairs.
1.6) Blockaded ports, Trade wars: England seeks domination. Why not make Scotland a colony?
The Scottish ship Annandale, which was lying in the Thames ready to start on a trading voyage to
India, was seized in 1704 by the English East India Company,as the latter did not care to have Scottish merchants
interfering with the trade of a country which they held in monopoly.
The act aroused much indignation in Scotland, and was taken as an evidence that the English would not permit Northern
traders to have equal commercial rights with them even in territories subject to the common sovereign, and made
the idea of any union or surrender of rights be further away than ever. Soon after a chance for reprisal offered
Itself when the English vessel Worcester, another India trader, was forced into the Forth Estuary, off Edinburgh,
by stress of weather. The vessel was seized, and, from some remarks made when in liquor by one of the crew, it
was soon believed that they had been concerned in the murder of the captain and crew of one of the Darien vessels
which was missing. Captain Thomas Green, of the Worcester,his mate and crew, fifteen men in all, were arrested
and tried before the Court of Admiralty in Edinburgh burgh for their lives. Popular feeling ran high against them,
and the facts that the Worcesterwas better armed than was usual with vessels of her class, and that among
her papers a cipher was found, made it clear to the agitated minds of the people that the ship was a pirate instead
of a trader. When the trial came off it was found that there was really no evidence against Captain Green, and
had his crew not contained several cowards it is questionable If the court would have convicted any one. But one
person testified that the Worcester on the Coromandel coast had boarded and captured a vessel bearing a
red flag and manned by people speaking the English language. They threw the crew overboard and sold the ship and
cargo. Hearsay evidence was given by another crewman and by the ship's surgeon, the supercargo's mate, the
ship's cooper, and a seaman, and a local witness testified that Captain Green had shown him a seal having the arms
of the Scottish African and Indian Company. The entire evidence was of the most flimsy description, but the jury
turned every surmise into a fact and answered the popular clamour for the blood of the prisoners by bringing in
a verdict finding, them all guilty. A disposition was shown in several quarters to obtain a reprieve from the crown
for the condemned, but the very suggestion aroused the populace to frenzy and the effort was not persisted in.
In April, 1705, Captain Green, his mate, and a gunner were conveyed to Leith amidst the curses of the people and
executed. This consummation seemed to allay the popular wrath, and no effort was made to bring about the execution
of the others.
Of course all this aroused a strong feeling in England but it shoved the statesmen on both sides of the Tweed
the necessity for a complete union, and that such a union could only be accomplished by concessions from both parties.
The English wished to retain their colonial and continental trade; the Scottish were determined to retain their
own laws and their own independence. To illustrate the condition of affairs by a modern example, the Scots were
in favor of commercial union, the English favored annexation pure and simple.
(This sounds familiar too. Westminster sees its hold over Scotland failing but it plays the Europeans as a
common enemy as they no longer have the power to annex anything!)
To harmonize these diverse interests was the task of the hour, and, hurried on by the events connected with
the fate of Captain Green, Queen Anne and her ministry, headed by Godolphin, essayed to solve it. The entire matter
was referred to a body of English and Scottish commissioners selected by the queen's advisers, care being taken
to appoint only those who were known to be in favor of a close union between the countries.
(This scenario has been played out again by those who would keep Scotland a subdued nation by the self appointed
quango called the constitutional convention, including church men, whose predecessors in the 17th century sold
their nation JUST to keep their church. Their views, report and proposals can be no more trusted those sycophants
appointed by Anne three centuries ago.)
1.7) Scotland the Bribed (1706) - Treachery in the Cloisters
Into the details of the negotiations and discussions between the commissioners there is no need of entering
here, and a Scotsman could hardly chronicle them without a feeling of shame. No matter how much the
treaty may have benefited Scotland, there is no doubt that the Scottish commissioners agreed to many of its provisions
after being liberally bribed by the English, and gold and fair promises of future honors and promotions caused
a majority of the Scottish Estates to ratify the treaty. The nobility of Scotland in the reign of
Queen Anne were just as ready to sell their country as were their predecessors in the time of Wallace and at other
critical epochs in the history of the land. Of course there were honorable exceptions such as Lord Belhaven - whose
speech against the union was a noble and unanswerable piece of eloquence, although Lord Marchmont, with a bribe
of 1104 pounds in his pocket, pronounced it a dream but the exceptions were not numerous enough to save the roll
of (The lesson to be learned here for the Scottish people is plain. Trust no one who tells you how good the "
union " is. Trust no one whose " noble " family background appears to lend support to their pro-unionist
views. Trust no Englishman who says Scotland cannot stand as a nation, free and unfettered once again. And certainly
do not trust the Tory and unionist controlled media, who with the noted and splendid exception of Grampian TV,
is firmly in the grasp, and perhaps bank account, of those who deny Scotland its right to self determination.)
The only section of the community which came out of the negotiations with any degree of honour was the Church,
and at its behest an act for securing Presbyterianism in the land was passed ant appended to the treaty. The entire
Union measure, however, was received with the utmost abhorrence by the people. Riots in Glasgow, Edinburgh and
elsewhere made many tremble lest the populace would overrule the law and overturn the government unless military
measures were resorted to, and many of the leading advocates and signers of the treaty had to resort to flight
or concealment to protect their lives.
1.8) What Robert Burns: Poet and Patriot said
The following lines by Robert Burns, fairly express the sentiments entertained in Scotland regarding the treaty
and its advocates:
Fairweel to a' ou Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory;
Fareweel e'en to the Scottish name,
Sae famed in martial story.
Now Sark runs o'er the Solway sands,
And Tweed runs to the ocean
To mark where England's province stands
---> Such a parcel of rogues in a nation. <----
What force or guile could not subdue
Through many warlike ages
Is wrought now by a coward few
For hireling trators' wages.
The English steel we could disdain,
Secure in valor's station,
But English gold has been our bane
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.
O would, or I had seen the day
That treason thus could sell us
My auld grey head had lain in clay
Wi' Bruce an' loyal Wallace.
But pith and power, till my last hour
I'll make this declaration,
----> we're bought and sold for English gold <-----
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.
( This poem says it all. There was no " Act of Union " . It was a foul act perpetrated on the Scottish
people, paid for in gold and favours. Burns says he'd rather rest in peace with Scotlands true and honoured patriots
than live on in a land whose so called nobility had sold their country for English gold )
The treaty itself, which, with the rider referring to the Church, is here given in full, is deserving of careful
study at the present day, when the air is full of rumours as to political changes, and when the development of home-rule
theories and the evident growth of a sentiment in favor imperial confederation may lead to movements or encourage
legislation in which what is left of the distinct nationality of Scotland may be swept away or be still further
obscured. In the notes I have endeavoured briefly to throw light upon various provisions of the treaty, and incidentally
to illustrate the cowardice and knavery of the Scotch commissioners:
(If nothing in this treaty or its description raises your interest, this should. Westminster has been blocking,
through idle chat, Scotlands return as a nation state for many a year. They were talking about devolved parliaments
in 1898! Imagine, you voted Labour to get a parliament that London will control, you have wasted your vote....)
2.1) The preface of the Act of Union
ACT RATIFYING AND APPROVING TREATY OF THE TWO KINGDOMS OF SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND. January 16, 1707.
The Estates of Parliament considering that articles of Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England were agreed
on the 22nd of July 1706 years, by the commissioners nominated on behalf of this kingdom, under Her Majesty's Great
Seal of Scotland, bearing date the 27th of February last past, in pursuance of the fourth Act of the third Session
of this Parliament, and the commissioners nominated on behalf of the kingdom of England, under Her Majesty's Great
Seal of England, bearing date at Westminster the 10th day of April last past, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament
made in England the third year of Her Majesty's reign, to treat of and concerning a union of the said kingdoms;
which articles were, in all humility, presented to Her Majesty upon the 23rd of the said month of July, and were
recommended to this Parliament by Her Majesty's royal letter of the date the 31st day of July, 1706; and that the
said Estates of Parliament have agreed to, and approven of the said Articles of Union, with some additions.
I That the two kingdoms of Scotland and England shall, upon
the Ist day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom by the name of
Great Britain,[*] and that the ensigns armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall
appoint, and the crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit,
[**] and used in all flags, banners, standards and ensigns, both at sea and land.
[*] This clause in the treaty, it is claimed by the Scot, has virtually become a dead letter as far at least
as the English are concerned. Everything is " English " Scotland is ignored and Great Britain is seldom
talked about. " The English Parliament," " the English army" are the usual terms in which the
British House of Commons and British soldiers are mentioned. This has naturally aroused much indignation in Scotland,
and public protests on the platform and the press are frequent. There is no doubt that there is good ground for
complaint, but candour compels me to acknowledge that the Scots are equally great sinners in this regard. If a Scot
becomes famous either in the army, the navy, literature, science or art, the Scottish newspapers and public speakers
do not call him a Briton, but glory in the fact that he is a Scot The best result of the agitation on this theme
is to keep alive a popular knowledge pn both sides of the Tweed that the treaty of union between the two kingdoms
really [**] This was suggested by the Scots commissioners as being the readiest way of settling a matter which,
although trivial in itself, might have caused considerable trouble.
(The Union Jack, a flag that many colonials learned to fear during the imperial past! the last real colonies
being Hong Kong and Scotland. Remember, you now know these so called commissioners were paid for their support,
they did not represent the views of the Scottish public. Many historians point to the Jacobite as the seperatists,
however, the act of union fired riots in lowland Scotland - very few Scotsmen agreed with it.)
II That the succession to the monarchy of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain, and of the dominions thereunto belonging, after Her Most Sacred Majesty, and in default of issue
of Her Majesty, be, remain, and continue to the most Excellent Princess Sophia, Electoress and Duchess Dowager
of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants, upon whom the crown of England Is settled by an Act of
Parliament made in England in the twelfth year of the reign of His late Majesty King William III., entltuled, "An
Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject :"
And that all Papists, and persons marrying Papists, shall be excluded from, and for ever incapable to inherit,
possess, or enjoy the Imperial Crown of Great Britain, and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part thereof,
and in every such case the Crown and Govermnent shall, from time to time, descend to, and be enjoyed by such person,
being a P
III That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented
by one and the same Parliament, to be styled the Parliament of Great Britain.[***]
[***]The Adoption of this article did away with an office - that of Lord Chancellor off Scotland which had
existed since the time of Alexander 1 (an old Scottish King), and had been held by many of the brightest men In
the country. The Lord Chancellor presided over the Scottish Parliament was the head of the judicial system, the
chief adviser of the King and keeper of the great seal. The Lord Chancellor at the time the treaty was passed was
the Earl Of Seafield. He was a zealous advocate in its favor and gladly accepted his share of the plunder which
was distributed among noblemen of his stamp. On April 22nd, 1707. when the Scottish Parliament broke up for the
last time, Seafield, In his glee at the fulfillment of a work in which he took such a prominent part, said with
grim humour, " There is the end of an auld sang." A brother of this ignoble scoundrel characterized his
conduct at the time in fitting terms. Seafield had objected to his brother trading in cattle as being derogatory
to the family rank. " Take your own tale hame," said the brother; " I only sell nowt (cattle), but
you sell nations ".
IV That all the subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
shall, from and after the Union, have full freedom and intercourse of trade and navigation, to and from any port
or place within the said United Kingdom, and the dominions and plantations thereunto belonging, and that there
be a communication of all other rights, privileges, and advantages which do or may belong to the subjects of either
kingdom, except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these articles.
V . That all ships or vessels belonging to her Majesty's subjects
of Scotland, at the time of ratifying the Treaty of Union of the two kingdoms in the Parliament of Scotland, though
foreign built, be deemed and pass as ships of the build of Great Britain. The owner, or, where there are more owners,
one or more of the owners, within twelve months after the 1st of May next, making oath that at the time of ratifying
the Treaty of Union in the Parliament of Scotland, the same did, in whole or in part, belong to him or them, or
to some other subject or subjects of Scotland, to be particularly named, with the place of their respective abodes,
and that the same doth then, at the time of the said deposition, wholly belong to him or them, and that no foreigner,
directly or indirectly, hath any share, part, or interest therein; which oath shall be made before the chief officer
or officers of the customs, in the port next to the abode of the said owner or owners; and the
VI That all parts of the United Kingdom forever,from and after
the Union, shall have the same allowances, encouragements, and drawbacks, and be under the same prohibitions, restrictions,
and regulations of trade, and liable to the same customs and duties on import and export; and that the allowances,
encouragements, and drawbacks. prohibitions, restrictions, and regulations of trade, and the customs and duties
on import and export settled in England, when the Union commences, shall, from and after the Union, take place
throughout the whole United Kingdom **** excepting and reserving the duties upon export and import of
such particular commodities from which any persons, the subjects of either kingdom, are specially liberated and
exempted by their private rights, which after the Union are to remain safe and entire to them, in all respects,
as before the same; and that, from and after the Union, no Scots cattle carried into England shall be liable to
[****]This clause was bitterly opposed by Scottish merchants. who thought it involved the ruin of their own
trade with the Continent, as it brought them to a level with the competition of Southern traders. They did not
see the use of having free-trade with England while their own foreign trade was to be imperilled by restrictions,
regulations and payments from which it had hither to been free
VII That all parts of the United Kingdom be forever from and
after the Union, liable to the same excises upon all excisable liquors, excepting only that the thirty four gallons
English barrel of beer or ale, amounting to twelve gallons Scots, present measure, sold in Scotland by the brewer
at 9s. 6d. sterling, excluding all duties, and retailed, including duties and the retailer's profit, at 2d. the
Scots pint, or eighth part of the Scots gallon, be not, after the Union, liable, on account of the present excise
upon excisable liquors in England, to any higher imposition than 2s sterling upon the aforesaid thirty-four gallons
English barrel, being twelve gallons the present Scots measure, and that the excise settled in England on all other
liquors, when the Union commences, take place throughout the whole United Kingdom.***** WHISKY WHISKY
WHISKY......
[****] This section was regarded with popular disfavour in Scotland. Prior to the Union the excise in Scotland
was farmed out in the different districts, and the collections were easy and were made according to the convenience
of those who had to pay. The business was really transacted by neighbours in a neighbourly fashion. After the Union
the Boards of excise controlled from London introduced a stricter regime, with severe penalties for infringement
of the law or delinquency in payments.
VIII That, from and after the Union, all foreign salt which
shall be imported into Scotland shall be charged, at the importation there, with the same duties as the like salt
is now charged with, being imported into England, and to be levied and secured in the same manner. But in regard
the duties of great quantities of foreign salt imported may be very heavy on the merchants importers, That therefore
all foreign salt imported into Scotland shall be cellared and locked up under the custody of the merchant importer
and the officers employed for levying the duties upon salt; and that the merchant may have what quantities thereof
his occasion may require, not under a weigh of forty bushels at a time, giving security for the duty of what quantity
he receives, payable in six months; but Scotland shall, for the space of seven years from the said Union, be exempted
from paying in Scotland for salt made there the duty or excise now payable for salt made in England; [*****] Taken
as a whole, the commercial clauses in th Treaty were eminently fair, and, if anything, Scotland had the advantage.
The English commissioners were not merchants and probably held commerce as a secondary consideration to whatever
political advantages they might gain. (Now we have come to the close of the 20th century with Europe facing
the brightest future in its history. The very real possibility of stable and predictable financial transactions
- heralded by a single European currency appears to frighten off the Tories, whose main concern now is appears
to be that the bank of England would lose its iron grip on the English and Scottish economies...)
IX That whenever the sum of £ 1,997,763 8s. 4½d.
shall be enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain, to be raised in that part of the United Kingdom now called
England, on land and other things usually charged in Acts of Parliament there for granting an aid to the Crown
by a land tax, that part of the United Kingdom now called Scotland shall be charged by the same Act with a further
sum of £ 48,000 free of all charges, as the quota of Scotland to such tax, and so proportionally for any
greater or lesser sum raised in England by any tax on land, and other things usually charged, together with the
land; and that such quota for Scotland, in the cases aforesaid, be raised and collected in the same manner as the
cess now is in Scotland but subject to such regulations in the manner of collecting as shall be made by the Parliament
of Great Britain.******
[******]That is to say, Scotland agreed to pay one fortieth of the direct taxation of the United Kingdom,and
, on the ground that representation should be regulated by taxation, many hold that the English commisioners were
particularly generous in allowing the Scots the number of parliamentary representatives they did. (And
again, at the end of the 20th Century, the Scots do still have a good proportion of MPs in Westminster. However,
the Scots are being robbed blind with taxes as the treasury has admitted, and those Scottish MPs can never sway
the view of the 400 or so English MP's to pay any particular attention to Scottish issues, unless of course they
dare to mention the break up of this most unfair and subtly oppressive union!)
X That during the continuance of the respective duties on stamped
paper, vellum, and parchment, by several Acts now in force in England, Scotland shall not be charged with the same
respective duties
XI That during the continuance of the duties payable in England
on windows and lights, which determines on the 1st day of August, 1710, Scotland shall not be charged with the
same duties.
XII That during the continuance of the duties payable in England
on coals, culm, and cinders, which determines the 30th day of September, 1710, Scotland shall not be charged therewith
for coals, culm, and cinders consumed there, but shall be charged with the same duties as in England for all coal,
culm, and cinders not consumed in Scotland.
XIII That during the continuance of the duty payable in England
on malt, which determines the 4th day of June 1707, Scotland shall not be charged with that duty
XIV That the kingdom of Scotland be not charged with
any other duties laid on by the Parliament of England before the Union, except those consented to in this Treaty,
in regard, it is agreed, that all necessary provisions shall be made by the Parliament of Scotland for the public
charge and service of that kingdom for the year 1707, provided nevertheless, that if the Parliament of England
shall think fit to lay any further impositions by way of customs or such excises, with which, by virtue of this
Treaty, Scotland is to be charged equally with England, in such case Scotland shall be liable to the same customs
and excises, and have an equivalent to be settled by the Parliament of Great Britain; with this further provision,
that any malt to be made and consumed in that part of the United Kingdom now called Scotland shall not be charged
with any imposition upon malt during this present war. And seeing it cannot be supposed that the Parliament
(Here we have a splendid example of how Westminster has broken the law, and imposed an illegal
tax on the people of Scotland. Margaret Thatcher, may be a recognised statesman , however, under her regime the
poll tax was enforced in Scotland at least 15 months BEFORE anywhere else in the " UK ". This ws in direct
violation of the " Act of Union " you are now reading. Does anyone know of some aggressive, bright young
lawyers anywhere in Europe who would like to investigate a class action suite filed against Westminster, on behalf
of the people of Scotland who were damaged by this illegal tax? It would make the headlines and make brilliant
careers for those who could make the point, let alone secure damages, even if they be one penny....)
[******] This article,and the four preceding,were merely introduced for the temporary protection of Scotland.
XV Whereas by the terms of this Treaty the subjects of Scotland,
for preserving an equality of trade throughout the United Kingdom, will be liable to several customs and excises
now payable in England, which will be applicable towards payment of the debts of England contracted before the
Union, it is agreed that Scotland shall have an equivalent for what the subjects thereof shall be so charged towards
payment of the said debts of England in all particulars whatsoever in manner following, viz., that before the union
of the said kingdoms the sum of £ 398,085 10s. be granted to Her Majesty by the Parliament of England for
the uses after mentioned, being the equivalent to be answered to Scotland for such parts of the said customs and
excises upon all excisable liquors with which that kingdom is to be charged upon the Union as will be applicable
to the payment of the said debts of England, according to the proportions which the present customs in Scotland,
[*]Most of the public debts herein referred to were arrearages of salary to public officials.
This article is the keystone of the treaty, and but for it the document would never have become law, It
provided a fund from which the Scottish commissioners and others might be bribed to consent to all its provisions,
either directly or indirectly.
Men who sold their country out
Scottish " nobles " who sold out their country
| NAME |
Amount of Bribe £ |
| Duke of Montrose |
200 |
| Duke of Athole |
1000 |
| Duke of Roxburgh |
500 |
| Marquis of Tweeddale |
1000 |
| Earl of Marchmont |
1104 |
| Earl of Cromarty |
300 |
| Earl of Balcarres |
500 |
| Earl of Dunmore |
200 |
| Earl of Eglinton |
200 |
| Earl of Forfar |
100 |
| Earl of Glen Cairn |
100 |
| Earl of Kintore |
200 |
| Earl of Findlater |
100 |
| Earl of Seafield |
490 |
| Lord Prestonhall |
200 |
| Lord Ormiston |
200 |
| Lord Anstruther |
300 |
| Lord Fraser |
100 |
| Lord Polwarth |
50 |
| Lord Forbes |
50 |
| Lord Elibank |
50 |
| Lord Banff |
11 !!!! |
| Provost of Ayr |
100 |
Well may we exclaim, " Such a parcel of rogues in a nation." That a peer should sell his vow
and his country for £ 11 may be regarded as about the most contemptible transaction on record. Even the provost
of Ayr got £ 100. The Lords Ordinary were to receive £ 500 a year instead of £ 100 and all the
law servants of the crown received gratuities or increased salaries. When the story of this wholesale bribery became
partly known the people were furious, and when the money was taken to Edinburgh to be divided the citizens could
only be kept from destroying it by sheer force of arms. They regarded the gold in the closely guarded wagons as
being the price paid in exchange for the delivery of the liberty of the kingdom into the hands of the English.
Possibly had they realized that the money was to be repaid by Scotland into the British treasury, even the protection
of the military we old have been insufficient to prevent the coffers and their contents being thrown into the
Nor' Loch. As Sir The Darien scheme, the stock in which was largely held by the Scotch commissioners, the members
of the Scottish Parliament, and the upper classes generally This was one of the most thoughtful schemes for making
the bribery in connection with the Union be as widespread as possible that could be imagined. Even the Royal Burghs
were stockholders.
XVI That, from and after the Union, the coin shall be of the
same standard and value throughout the United Kingdom as now in England, and a Mint shall be continued in Scotland
under the same rules as the Mint in England; and the present officers of the Mint continued, subject to such regulations
and alterations as Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, or the Parliament of Great Britain, shall think fit.
(Here we have another anomaly. Many English businesses will give you look if you try to use banknotes from
a Scottish bank. They do realise that they have to accept the money under this treaty.
Also, I noticed at least two American banks give you less for a £ 20 Scottish banknote than a bank of England
note!)
XVII That, from and after the Union, the same weights and
measures shall be used throughout the United Kingdom as are now established in England, and standards of weights
and measures shall be kept by those burghs in Scotland to whom the keeping the standards of weights and measures,
now in use there, does of special right belong; all which standards shall be sent down to such respective burghs
from the standards kept in the exchequer at Westminster, subject, nevertheless, to such regulations as the Parliament
of Great Britain shall think fit.
XVIII That the laws concerning regulation of trade, customs,
and such excises to which Scotland is, by virtue of this Treaty, to be liable, be the same in Scotland, from and
after the Union, as in England, and that all other laws in use within the kingdom of Scotland do, after the Union,
and notwithstanding thereof, remain in the same force as before (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent
with this Treaty), but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain; with this difference betwixt the laws concerning
public right, policy, and civil government, and those which concern private right, that the laws which concern
public right, policy, and civil government may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom, but that no
alteration be made in laws which concern private right, except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.
XIX That the Court of Session, or College of Justice, do,
after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in all time coming within Scotland, as it is now constituted
by the laws of that kingdom, and with the same authority and privileges as before the Union, subject, nevertheless,
to such regulations, for the better administration of justice, as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain
; and that hereafter none shall be named by Her Majesty, or her royal successors, to be ordinary Lords of Session,
but such who have served in the College of Justice as advocates, or principal clerks of Session, for the space
of five years, or as Writers to the Signet for the space of ten years, with this provision, that no Writer to the
Signet be capable to be admitted a Lord of the Session, unless he undergo a private and public trial on the civil
law before the Faculty of Advocates, and be found by them qualified for the said office two years before he be
name (The privy council appears to have been replaced by the Scottish office, which is of course a puppet of
Westminster on a set of very tight strings. It implements Westminster policy in Scotland, but generally (although
not always) does litlle to promote Scotlands interests. The Scottish Enterprise board is far more pro-active in supporting
Scottish investment, but of course, the profits end up in Westmisters purse, see the £
27 billion that Westminster has siphoned from Scotland in less than 20 years )
XX That all heritable offices, superiorities, heritable jurisdictions,
offices for life, and jurisdictions for life, be reserved to the owners thereof, as rights of property, in the
same manner as they are now enjoyed by the laws of Scotland, notwithstanding of this Treaty.*
[*]The main purpose of this article was to continue the peers and their dependents in honourary or lucrative
positions
XXI That the rights and privileges of the royal burghs in
Scotland, as they now are, do remain entire after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof.**
[**]The Royal Burghs did not appreciate the favor thus shown them, for as soon as the provisions of the treaty
were made public they denounced it in unmeasured terms,. In a petition to the Queens commissioners and the Parliament,
the Convention of Royal Burghs said: " Seeing, by the articles of Union, now under the consideration of the
Honourable Estates of Parliament, it is agreed that Scotland and England shall be united into one kingdom; and that
the united kingdoms be united by one and the same Parliament, by which our monarchy Is suppressed, our parliament
extinguished, and in consequence our religion, church government, claim of right, laws, liberties, trade and all
that is dear to us, daily in danger of being encroached upon, altered or wholly subverted by the English In a British
Parliament, wherein the mean representation allowed for Scotland can never signify in securing to us the interest
reserved by us, or granted to us by the English.
And by these articles our poor people are made liable to the English taxes which is a certain unsupportable burden,
considering that the trade proposed is uncertain, involved and wholly precarious, especially when regulated as
to export and import by the laws of England, and under the same prohibitions and restrictions, customs and duties.
And considering that the most considerable branches of our trade are differing from those of England, and are,
and may be yet more discouraged by their laws and that all the concerts of trade and our interest are, after the
Union, subject to such alterations as the Parliament of Great Britain shall think fit:
We therefore supplicate your Grace [the Queen's representative] and the Honourable Estates of Parliament, and do
assuredly expect that ye will not conclude such an Incorporate Union, as is contained in the articles proposed,
but that ye will support and maintain the true Reformed Protestant Religion and Church Government, as by law established,
the sovereignty and independency of this crown and kingdom, and the rights and privileges of (Scottish) Parliament.
"
(Of course, the provost of Ayr {amongst others} was a man controlling a major burgh town. He and others like
him sold Scottish nationhood for English gold! However, many of the Burghs soon realised how devisive the "
union " was and tried, in vain, to scrap the act. Of course it was by then too late. )
XXII That, by virtue of this Treaty, of the Peers of Scotland
at the time of the Union, sixteen shall be the number to sit and vote in the House of Lords,*** and
fortyfive the number of the representatives of Scotland in the House of Commons of the Parliament of Great Britain;
and that when Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, shall declare her or their pleasure for holding the first or
any subsequent Parliament of Great Britain, until the Parliament of Great Britain shall make further provision
therein, a writ do Issue under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, directed to the Privy Council of Scotland,
commanding them to cause sixteen Peers, who are to sit in the House of Lords, to be summoned to Parliament, and
forty-five members to be elected to sit in the House of Commons of the Parliament of Great Britain, according to
the agreement in this Treaty, in such manner as by a subsequent Act of this present session of the Parliament of
Scotland [***] This article probably aroused a more bitter opposition than any other. The Scots did not anticipate
in consenting to a single parliament that Scotland's representation in it would be so meagre. The Scottish Commoners
thought that all their peers would get seats in the British House of Lords, and that their share in the House of
Commons should be 170 at least. The English at first placed the figures at 16 Lords And 30 Commoners, and for a
time it seemed as though all negotiations were at an end. The compromise of 45 Commoners was finally accepted.
On this point Sir Walter Scott writes: " It was loudly urged that a kingdom resigning her ancient independence,
should at least obtain in the great national council a representation bearing the same proportion the Population
of Scotland did to that of England, which was one to six. If this rule, which seems the fairest that could be found,
had been adopted, Scotland would have sent sixty-six members to the United Parliament. * * * The Scottish peerage
were to preserve all the other privileges of their rank, but their right of sitting in parliament and acting as
hereditary legislators, was to be greatly limited
Only sixteen of their number were to enjoy Seats in the British House of Lords and these were to be chosen by election
from the whole body. Such peers as were amongst the number of Commissioners were induced to consent to this degradation
of their order by the assurance that they themselves should be created British peers, so as to give them, personally,
by charter, the right which the sixteen could only Acquire by election. "
The English view is thus stated by Hallam, in his " Constitutional History of England ":
" The ratio of population would indeed have given Scotland About one eighth of the legislative body, instead
of something less than one twelfth, but no government, except the merest democracy, is settled on the sole basis
of numbers; and If the comparison of wealth and of public contributions was to be admitted it may be thought that
a country which stipulated for itself to pay less than one-fortieth of direct taxation, was not entitled to a much
greater share of the representation than it obtained. Comparing the two ratios of population and property there
seems little objection to this part of the union."
(Of course the argument is academic nowadays. Although Scotland is well represented in the number
of MPs (parliamentary members) it returns to Westminster in London, they are always outnumbered by non-Scottish
MPs. The two major " UK " parties, Labour and Conservative (Tory)- have little to no interest in Scotlands
welfare. The Labour party has many Labour voters and seats it wants to keep in Scotland, so they pay lip service
to Scottish nationhood. The Tories do not give a hoot what the Scottish want or think, they regard Scotland as
a backwater, a colony which can be manipulated and treated as any colony was in Imperial days. Both Labour and
Tory use the Scottish office to exert Westminsters will on the Scottish people. Only the Scottish Nationalist
Party understands the truth, but the media does not give it TV air time or press coverage to explain to the Scots
how they are being degraded and exploited. Of course the media and press are comfortably in the pocket of Westminster.
Who knows what " incentives " are offered to the owners and editors NOT to promote, and actually stifle
the truth)
XXIII That the foresaid sixteen peers of Scotland, mentioned
in the last preceding article, to sit in the House of Lords of the Parliament of Great Britain, shall have all
privileges of Parliament which the peers of England now have, and which they or any peers of Great Britain shall
have after the Union, and particularly the right of sitting upon the trials of peers; and in case of the trial
of any peer in time of adjournment or prorogation of Parliament, the said sixteen peers shall be summoned in the
same manner and have the same powers and privileges at such trial as any other peers of Great Britain. And that,
in case any trials of peers shall hereafter happen when there is no Parliament in being, the sixteen peers of Scotland
who sat in the last preceding Parliament shall be summoned in the same manner and have the same powers and privileges
at such trials as any other peers of Great Britain. And that all peers of Scotland, and their successors to the
XXIV That, from and after the Union, there be one Great Seal
for the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which shall be different from the Great Seal now used in either kingdom;
and that the quartering the arms and the rank and precedency of the Lyon King of Arms of the kingdom of Scotland,
as may best suit the Union, be left to her Majesty; anti that, in the meantime, the Great Seal of England be used
as the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, and that the Great Seal of the United Kingdom be used for sealing writs
to elect and summon the Parliament of Great Britain, and for sealing all treaties with foreign princes and states,
and all public acts, instruments, and orders of state which concern the whole United Kingdom, and in all other
matters relating to England, as the Great Seal of England is now used; and that a seal in Scotland, after the Union,
be always kept, and made use of in all things relating to private rights or grants, which have usually passed th
[*]A new office was appointed in carrying out this article, that of Keeper of the Great Seal in Scotland. The
sent was formerly kept by the Lord Chancellors of the kingdom
XXV That all laws and statutes in either kingdom, so far as
they are contrary to or inconsistent with the terms of these articles, or any one of them, shall, from and after
the Union cease and become void, and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said kingdoms.
Church of Scotland paid off for signing up to the Treaty of Union 1707
follows the tenor of the aforesaid Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government
in Scotland **
Our Sovereign Lady and the Estates of Parliament, considering that, by the late Act of Parliament
for a Treaty with England for an Union of both kingdoms, it is provided, That the Commissioners for that Treaty
should not treat of or concerning any alteration of the worship, discipline, and government of the Church of this
kingdom, as now by law established; which Treaty being now reported to the Parliament, and it being reasonable
and necessary that the true Protestant religion, as presently professed within this kingdom, with the worship,
discipline, and government of this Church, should be effectually and unalterably secured;
(Here is where the Scottish Church sold its countrymen, history and Nationhood for its faith, why believe those
ministers now in the so called " constitutional convention "? )
therefore Her Majesty, with advice and consent of the said Estates of Parliament, doth hereby establish and confirm
the said true Protestant religion, and the worship, discipline, and government of this Church to continue without
any alteration to the people of this land in all succeeding generations; and more especially, Her Majesty, with
advice and consent foresaid, ratifies, approves, and forever confirms the fifth Act of the first Parliament of
King William and Queen Mary, entitled " Act Ratifying the Confession of Faith, and Settling Presbyterian
Church Government," with the whole other Acts of Parliament relating thereto, in prosecution of the Declaration
of the Estates of this kingdom, containing the Claim of Right, bearing date the 11th of April, 1689; and Her Majesty,
with advice and consent foresaid, expressly provides and declares that the foresaid true Protestant religion contained
in the above-mentioned Confession of Faith, with the form and purity of worship presently in use within this Church
And further, Her Majesty, with advice foresaid, expressly declares and statutes, That none of the subjects of this
kingdom shall be liable to, but all and every one of them forever free of any oath, test, or subscription, within
this kingdom, contrary to or inconsistent with the foresaid true Protestant religion and Presbyterian Church government,
worship, and discipline, as above established; and that the same, within the bounds of this Church and kingdom,
shall never be imposed upon, or required of them in any sort. And lastly, that after the decease of Her present
Majesty (whom God long preserve), the sovereign succeeding to her in the Royal Government of the kingdom of Great
Britain shall, in all time coming, at his or her accession to the Crown, swear and subscribe that they shall inviolably
maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the true Protestant religion, with the government, worship, discipline,
right, and privileges of this Church, as above established by the laws of this kingdom, in pr of the Claim of Right.
And it is hereby statute and ordained, that this Act of Parliament, with the establishment therein contained, shall
be held and observed, in all time coming, as a fundamental and essential condition of any Treaty of Union to be
concluded betwixt the two kingdoms, without any alteration thereof, or derogation thereto, in any sort forever.
As also, that this Act of Parliament, and settlement therein contained, shall be insert and repeated in any Act
of Parliament that shall pass, for agreeing and concluding the foresaid Treaty of Union betwixt the two kingdoms;
and that the same shall be therein expressly declared to be a fundamental and essential condition of the said Treaty
of Union, in all time coming. Which articles of Union, and Act immediately above written, Her Majesty, with advice
and consent foresaid, statutes, enacts, and ordains to be, and continue, in all time coming, the sure and perpetual
foundation of a complete and entire Union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England
Professor Herbert Story writes: " The commission of the General Assembly represented the Church (of Scotland)
during the progress of the Treaty with calmness and dignity, and in its address to Parliament temperately stated
those points the measure which were considered defective. The Commission complained of the English Sacramental
text as the condition of holding civil and military offices, and urged that no oath or text of any kind, inconsistent
with Presbyterian principles, should be required from Scottish churchmen. They recommended that an obligation to
uphold the Church of Scotland should be embodied in the coronation oath. They represented the necessity of a 'Commission
for the Plantation Kirks and Valuation of Teinds' and they concluded their fullest and most formal representation
with intimation that , knowing, as they did that twenty-six bishops sat in the House of Lords which on the conclusion
of the Treaty, Would have jurisdiction in Scottish affairs they desired to state with all respect, b "These
representations had their due effect. The bench of bishops of course, could not be removed The operation of the
test act in England though its scandal and injustice were undeniable, could not be meddled with, but as a kind
of equivalent for this grievance, and to guard the Scotch universities and schools against the dreaded infection
of prelacy, it was enacted that every professor and teacher should' ere his admission, subscribe the Confession
of Faith as being the confession of his faith and bind himself in the Presbytery's presence to conform to the discipline
and worship of the Established Church. It was provided that the unalterable establishment and maintenance of the
Presbyterian Church should be stipulated by an act prior to any other act, that should ratify the Treaty, and should
then be embodied in the Act of Ratification; and that the first oath the British Sovereign should take on his accession
should be an oath to maintain the government, worship, discipline, rights and privileges of the
So ends the unabridged tale of the sale of Scotlands dignity, pride and economy into the
hands of the English (as Westminster is still dominated by them), by so called " nobles " for money and
a dram of power which they never received, and by the Scottish church, which did fasten its doctrine firmly in
Scotland- at the price of selling of the nation.
Those same " nobles " , that same church, and wealthy businessmen with interests in London, formed the
core of the " constitutional convention ". This self appointed tribe of non-descripts had the audacity
to pontificate over Scotlands political and economic future. Their sights were fixed on maintaining his illegal
and unfair union, flying in the face of popular Scottish public desire and economic reality that clearly points
to an independent Scottish state would be an incredibly strong economy that would surely be accepted into the European
Union.
The Church of Scotland need not tow the union line anymore. They have the religious freedom they desire. Why then
do they insist on following the unionist line? Who can say.
Also, I firmly believe that England has every right to keep its pounds, pints and inches, it can (foolishly) pull
out of the European Union if it must, but Westminster has NO right to pull Scotland into that mess with them.
|
