Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Saturday, 7th November 2009 Change Date

Why Ruaridh is now paying his union dues

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
11 January 2007
RUARIDH NICOLL is explaining why, despite the fact that he was brought up on a hill farm in deepest, darkest Sutherland, Edinburgh is where he now calls home. "It's probably for the same reasons as most people here, it's how beautiful it is, it's one of the nicest places in the world to live.
"I live in Stockbridge and I never have to get in the car to go anywhere, everywhere is right there," the 37-year-old novelist continues. "It's the city of Stevenson, of the Edinburgh Review, the Enlightenment... I could go on and on."

"There's even this bar," he says, indicating the wood-panelled interior of the Shore Bar in Leith where we're sitting. "And I have spent so many summer days sitting out there," he nods to the water's edge, which is looking most unenticing on a cold and dreich January day.
What do you think of the Union between the two countries? Was it a good idea? Has its time passed? Let us know<br /> <h5>Tel:</h5><br />0131 620 8747<br /><br /><h5>Email:</h5><br /><a href="mailto:news_en@edinburghnews.com">news_en&
What do you think of the Union between the two countries? Was it a good idea? Has its time passed? Let us know
<h5>Tel:</h5>
0131 620 8747

<h5>Email:</h5>
<a href="mailto:news_en@edinburghnews.com">news_en&


It was, according to Ruaridh in a BBC documentary to be broadcast tomorrow, another cold day - albeit in April not January - when one of the most shameful episodes in local history took place, not far from this very spot.

It was 1705 and anti-English feeling was running high as moves towards the Union of the two nations gathered pace. England had introduced the Aliens Act in February, which barred Scots from trading in cattle, coal and linen with the English - at a time when England accounted for 50 per cent of the Scottish export market. Coming on top of poor harvests during the 1690s, it was unsurprising that the move didn't go down too well.

In the Capital, though, it went further than that. As tensions rose, a group of English sailors from the ship The Worcester were imprisoned in the Tollbooth on trumped-up charges of piracy. On that chilly April day mob anger spilled over. Three sailors were dragged from the prison and down to Leith. Gibbets were erected and the innocent men were arbitrarily hanged.

The incident provides the opening scenes to the documentary, Patriot Games - The Making of the Union, which Ruaridh wrote and presents, to mark the Scots Parliament's agreement to the nation's union with England, the 300th anniversary of which takes place on Tuesday. It was the writer and journalist's first foray into television and he found the subject matter fascinating.

"I think I was like everyone else when it comes to the Union. I knew 'such a parcel of rogues in a nation' [the Robert Burns poem which claims the Scots parliament was "bought and sold for English gold"] but I was educated at a time when Scottish history wasn't really taught in schools.

"But they were happy for me to do it as a journey of discovery and short of the Clearances there is no more controversial period in Scottish history."

And probably, for 2007 at least, no other historical period which is more pertinent. The irony of the anniversary falling in the same year as an election where Scots-English relations are a hot topic isn't lost on the former reporter with the Evening News' sister paper, Scotland on Sunday. The likelihood of Gordon Brown becoming Prime Minister when the English are questioning the right of Scots to vote on English matters, the surge in the polls for Alex Salmond's brand of nationalism, the anti-Scots feeling during the World Cup from the English...

"It's an astonishing coincidence," says Ruaridh. "And I think all the coincidences together means we will talk about it."

The Nationalists are hoping this tide of questioning over our identity will play in their favour when it comes to the ballot box in May - but if Ruaridh's example is anything to go by, they are likely to be disappointed.

"Like a lot of Scots, I grew up as a nationalist supporter, shaking my fist at England. By the time the programme came around I was less nationalistic," he says. "And after the programme, I was a staunch unionist!" What helped to change his mind was discovering the Burns line about corrupt politicians giving in to English bribery wasn't exactly the whole story.

"You have this picture of these corrupt lot of aristocrats bribed by the English into selling our country. Once you actually start looking at these people, you find they are far more rounded characters. They are just amazing politicians," he enthuses. "To get these two countries that pretty much despised each other into a political union was terrific politics."

Cash was sloshing about, but far less than most people imagine, and used to influence far fewer politicians.

"The real experts who have studied this say there were two or three people who were bribed, like Lord Banff, who was paid just £11 or £12. So it is just ridiculous if you are actually going to feel aggrieved because an aristocrat or two got that much money - you are not taking our country seriously."

He is less than enthusiastic about the role of the Scottish Parliament, but insists: "I have high hopes for the future."

As long as that future includes a continued union with England, a union which he believes, having made the documentary, was brilliantly negotiated by the Scots.

"A lot of the people who originally negotiated the Union kept very important parts of the country's cultural life. And the Union forced us to live in a country with four nations, four independently-minded nations. I think that made us very tolerant, it bred liberal ideas. Now, we, like the English, are very tolerant. I think that's done us really proud over the years."

It's not a fashionable view at the moment - and as the documentary reveals, it wasn't terribly in vogue at the time.

"When Queensberry [the principal pro-union politician] trundled up and down the Royal Mile between the parliament and his townhouse, people would stand in the closes, which were basically gardy loos [where chamber pots were emptied], and pick up pieces of s**t and throw them at him," laughs Ruaridh. Indeed, with the parliament in the Capital, most of the action involving the Union takes place in Edinburgh.

For Ruaridh filming was the chance to see parts of Edinburgh he'd never visited before, like the old parliament hall, now courts, just behind St Giles' Cathedral.

"It's a wonderful place - people should go and see it and not just turn up when they are due in court," he says.

Making the documentary also provided a welcome break from the solitude of novel-writing - a solitude which Ruaridh, who is married to painter Alison Watt, took to extremes while penning his first novel, White Male Heart, published four years ago, when to moved to a cottage in the Wester Ross village of Achnasheen for 13 months. "I moved there because I knew it had a really good pub but I arrived to find it had burned down. There was nothing there."

He also works part-time for the Observer newspaper, spending half his week in London, where he's been able to judge first-hand growing English antipathy.

"There is a huge amount of anti-Scottishness. We have really p****d them off."

Labour's scare-tactics have backfired, he argues, with few realising the powerhouse of London subsidises much of the UK. He hopes, however, that we haven't annoyed the English so much that they'll send us packing.

"We think that by splitting away from England we will protect ourselves from such follies as Iraq in the future, which is true, but we will have no influence. Our politicians have a huge part to play in the world yet now, because we are embarrassed by Iraq, we want to be like Estonia. Or we've got Alex Salmond saying we want to be like Norway. Well, I don't want to be like bloody Norway."

Spoken like a true Scot.

• Patriot Games - The Making of the Union is on tomorrow on BBC2 Scotland from 9pm to 10pm

The full article contains 1328 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 January 2007 12:24 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: The union
 
1

Joe M.,

Edinburgh 11/01/2007 13:26:55

It is a great pity that whoever commissioned this programme did not choose someone who has some qualifications in history. When Michael Fry re-examined the union he went the other way and became a nationalist and I get the impression he looked into it a lot more thoroughly than your ex-columnist.

There was a lot of elements in the Union not the least of them the English troops who were stationed on the border and poised to invade if the decision went the other way!

Daniel DeFoe an English secret agent at the time said that the ordinary people were 'overwhelmingly against' the union. They rioted in the streets at the time of union and chased their MP's out the back door as well as providing numerous petitions to the Scottish Government which were completely ignored.

Still, I look forward to this piece of transparent historical revisionism and the discussion of this issue it will hopefully create.

If it ignores Darien, the treatment of Scotland by monarchs for two hundred years after the treaty of crowns and the various rebellions against the union in 1715, 1745 and 1820 amongst many others then it will continue a brave British tradition - of covering up our Scottish history and replacing it with blatant propaganda.

Who could admire people selling out their native land's independence for personal financial gain? A few pounds in those days was an enormous sum today.

Who could admire 'Members of Parliament' who ignore the will of the people?

"Well, I don't want to be like bloody Norway."
Spoken like a true xenophobic Brit, not a Scot.

2

Niall,

Cairnbulg Aberdeenshire 11/01/2007 13:52:44

I would like to make a couple of amendments to the revisionist historical article above. Over 30 influential people were bribed. I have a list if you wish to contact me. Lord Banff received £11 which was a long standing arrears of pay due to him. There were other inducements like patronage and preferements, The Earl of Seafield became Duke of Dover with the right to farm the revenues thereof.

The article makes no mention that Scotland was short of money because they were funding the Scottish army fighting under Lord Marlborough in France. The Scots made up half of that army. Thats why there was no money to purchase grain to offset the serious famine.

Please, Please get a reputable historian to make these programmes so that they do not British pro Union propaganda exercises. Ruaridh should understand the truth of this old saying :"Cha chreidear an fhirrin o bheul nam breug."

Airson Alba
Niall

3

Aesop,

The Socialist Republic of Leith 11/01/2007 13:59:33

One of the things that is consistently missed out in debates about the Union was the almost universal oppostion to it in Scotland.

The streets riots in almost every city challenged the legitimicay of the union - a union which was only achieved through bribery of the "parcel o rogues".

This was after a sustained English campaign of economic blackmail in addition to the threat of military intervention (English troops gathered at the border) if Scotland didnt surrender to Westminster rule.

4

scottwebb.co.uk,

12/01/2007 01:02:36

Great posts guys :)

5

Scottish Unionist,

My beloved country Scotland, UK 12/01/2007 06:46:42

Just to correct the nationalist simpleton from the top post. Michael Fry now supports independence as he believes devolution is not working, and that independence would be the best way to achieve a low tax, competitive, free market 'Tory' Scotland. He did not alter his views due to historical reasons. I suggest you actually read his book before commenting

With regards to the 1715 and 1745 'uprisings'. Jacobitism was not that popular in Scotland - lowland Scotland certainly was not in favour of it. Prof. Devine states that there were even parties on the streets of Glasgow following his defeat. If Bonnie Prince Charlie won, Scotland's economic prosperity and the Enlightenment would have been at risk due to the instability that would have insued - he would have had to gained support from foreign powers to remain on the throne.

I must ask, if the Union was such a political job, then why did Scotland get a good deal out of it - access to overseas markets, retaining its religious, educational and legal establishments. Scotland has always had a degree of semi-independence.

Compare that to other independent nations at the time. They did not have the same luck as Scotland.

It takes historical revisionism to the point of David Irving to say that this Union has not benefited Scotland. Our economy prospered with access to overseas markets; we became a power-house of Europe (both economically and intellectually). Of course, the economic benefits did not occur overnight.

I believe Scotland could become a small, successful independent country if the Scottish people opt for that direction. But I hate nationalists manipulating history to suit their own ends.

I look forward to the BBC (obviously biased to you nationalists since it includes 'British', synomous with the evil, imperialist English) "unionist propaganda" programme.

Of course no sensible Scot wants to become like Norway - have you seen the beer prices over there:)

6

Mark j,

www.independence1st.com 12/01/2007 08:47:39

Now think on this. Labour says Scotland is subsidised. But do not include Scotland 's resources like oil and gas in the figure nor the fact that Scotland exports energy. Scotland even has plenty of farm land and water which is the new global commodity. Scotland increasingly is becoming less reliant on fossil fuels. Edinburgh is a key financial centre, Scotland produces much, we read every year advances made in Scotland in many fields including medicine, and biotech sectors. Recently a low flow mini hydro generator that needs only 18inches of flow that can run most the electric needs of a small house. DO NOT underestimate the Scot. Scotland produces much wealth for the UK .
McConnell says Scotland can go it alone, it just depends what party leads us. Well, it certainly isnt Labour, is it? Labour offers no new solutions to the irregularities between England and Scotland . Labour does not even advance us toward fiscal autonomy. Fiscal autonomy would de-centralise the UK 's economy. In that, Scotland could be a nation state within the UK , administering,taxing and investing directly in its own nation with electoral consensus of the people. Fiscal autonomy would for once truly show what Scotland actually contributes. This isnt even on the table and it would solve grievances that the English populace has with Scotland 's so called subsidy. Status quo is all Labour seems to strive for. Ruaridh wants his cake and eat it too. He straddles Scotland and England in his personal affairs, yes this gives him a advantageous 'view' as a Scot in England . But the very 'rogues of a nation' who sold Scotland to the 'union' also straddled Scotland and England with their ownership of titles and lands in England . Ruaridh chooses his own interests over that of Scotland , he does not even offer a solution to Scotland status within the UK . He does not offer a 'third' way which is fiscal autonomy within the UK . Personally, i am for independence. I cannot understand a Scot saying

7

Josh Artmeier,

Edinburgh 12/01/2007 13:45:53

The Unionist argument implies that we have influence now. It's hard to see how the UK's foreign policy in the last few years could have been worse. The blood of tens of thousands testifies to the hollowness of this argument. We appear to have no influence at all on Blair, and if he has any on Bush it's only to encourage him.

I read and appreciated Ruaridh Nicoll's novel, "White Male Heart", a disturbing portrayal of a distorted, bloodthirsty and brutal male psyche. Did he have the current Bush/Blair regime in mind, or (I mischievously ask) does it reflect his own predilections? If the latter, then I can well understand his support of the Union.

8

Joe M.,

www.scottishindependence.com 12/01/2007 15:21:25

Scottish unionist, don't you mean your beloved 'North Britain'? That's what your fellows who had your views wanted to change Scotland's name to post union.

Why on earth should Scotland be considered uniquely incompetent amongst all other countries to actually run our own affairs?

England has ten times the population of Scotland, it's obvious that the British Union was about amplfying English power abroad and it still fulfills the same purpose today. (as Jack Straw admitted recently).

If we want our unique voice to be heard in the world then it's time for independence. The union of crowns was created by a King who had lost faith in his fellow Scots and wanted us to become a 'dim and distant shire'.

The union of parliaments was involuntary, made by corrupt bribed politicians and it sold out every Scots birthright to independence, it was against the will of the ordinary people of Scotland and no amount of revisionism of history will change that fact.

No doubt the 'nobles' of the time felt their hand was forced as military invasion was imminent but they should have remembered the words of the Declaration of Arbroath and kept their nerve.

Bonnie Prince Charlie did have nerve and he also had considerable success, up to a point. That his death was applauded by some just shows that there were people in Scotland then as now who didn't put their own country first. While his eye was also on the throne of England (that he had a right to) that probably made sense because that was where the major threat to our future independence remained.

Just because the union allowed us to retain a few crumbs of identity Scottish unionist thinks it was a success!

What low expectations and hopes you have for your native land and no wonder you're happy with the Status Quo. No doubt you would have also applauded the ban on tartan and the bagpipes post 1745 and the removal of the Scottish Secretary shortly after.

Any rights we have re

9

Scottish Unionist,

12/01/2007 19:25:29

All you can do is sling mud and throw insults. Just because you support independence does not make you more of a Scot than me.

If Scots want independence, then so be it - they can vote for the pro-independence parties come May. But, Scots have overwhelmingly rejected the SNP's seperatism since their inception.

You still cannot answer my points - that the Scots economically benefited from the Union. You also fail to notice the positive things that Scotland and England united have achieved - defeating totalitarianism (left and right wing forms) and the establishment of the NHS to name a few.

You also did not respond to my point regarding the perservation regarding religious, education and legal establishments - that's hardly our culture being swept away is it?

The true history of Jacobitism has been lost in romantic froth which nationalists like you like to manipulate to further your anti-English agenda.

Scotland at the time was in a financial crisis - Darien, the famines etc. Scots needed English home markets to prosper.The Union was sensible policy. Economic arguments are crucial as 15 of the 25 articles are related to the economy.

You make the point about bribery. Many of those who recieved money in 1706 would have backed the Union anyhow. The historian P.W.J Riley has noted that only Lord Elibank altered his vote after recieving money.

Just because I support the Union does not mean I do not think Scotland can't run its own affairs. Scotland would be a success as I have previously stated with a right of centre govt in the EU, implementing low taxes. I just don't follow the arguments of your group (which is an all party group) it is mainly composed of far left organisations and virulent nationalists. I also support the idea of fiscal autonomy for Scotland.

I suggest you refrain from watching Braveheart again. Look out of the box and select some reading from outside the nationalist section of the bookstore.

10

Joe M.,

12/01/2007 23:41:11

Most Scots were dirt poor at the beginning of the union and just as poor at the end. The bunch of toffs who were bribed and threatened into it might have made a bundle (eventually) but initially it was an unmitigated disaster economically.

In fact our standard of living in general didn't actually improve until after the second world war when rationing meant people for the first time actually got something decent to eat!

This was the great Empire was it? Scots were used as cannon fodder in the front line. At the same time their political rights were brutally oppressed at home. Our brothers in Ireland were murdered for demanding their rights to self determination in this century.

For the duration of the Empire every other country was trampled beneath a bunch of racist thugs and rapists who thought there were better than anyone else and could treat 'the natives' with impunity. At home most Scots were treated little better.

The only people who 'got on' were those who were willing to give up their identity in favour of the false one of 'North Britain'.

"Alas, I have often said to myself what are the boasted advantages which my country reaps from a certain Union that counterbalance the annihilation of her Independence, and even her name!"

- Robert Burns

The Empire was a shocking shameful episode in our history, ok so a few people might have earned some blood money but our people's voice was silenced, our ancestors were treated little better than slaves and our country was awash with British propaganda and remains so today.

Great!

Oh and now you're saying you're a 'Scottish Unionist' who supports independence, but as long as it's guaranteed to be right wing. Great faith in the public you have!

According to Labour and the Tories our economy is so bad today that we need England (apparently) to prop it up! It's hardly a positive argument for the union is it? We've mismanaged your economy so badly

11

Joe M.,

13/01/2007 00:03:11

This is a far more accurate analysis than the shocking mockumentary tonight:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1525&id=59582007

Re the BBC are a unionist Observer journalist and a Lib Dem politician really the best candidates to present supposedly unbiased documentaries about the union? I don't think so.

The title of the next one says it all 'a chip on both shoulders' - in case you're wondering they are both supposedly on ours!

12

Na Hearadh,

An Cuan Sgìth 13/01/2007 00:04:02

"Story-telling" at its best, isn't this what authors are best at? Opening sequence seems like a typical trial by tabloid approach. If the BBC cannot find historians with the knowledge, experience & critical analysis skills required to make such programmes then we can't really expect too much of them.

By the way, "we" are not embarrassed by Iraq, such trite comments only serve to trivialise the seriousness of the effects of invasion on both Iraq and the UK which history, not journalism will be the ultimate judge of. The majority of the population including both English & Scots, find the invasion & ongoing bloody aftermath horrific & object to it.

13

Scottish Unionist,

13/01/2007 01:12:44

Sorry, who would you have liked to have presented the programme? Alex Salmond? Because anti-English nationalists are SO un-biased!

How you can say that Scotland after the financial bankruptcy of Darien and the famines of the 1690's that she did not benefit from Union is absolutely staggering. The debt of Darien was wiped out by the Treaty. Of course, economic propersity took time, and Scotland was transformed into one of the richest countries in Europe, an economic and intellectual powerhouse.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry! I think you are a case of why we need to teach history better in our schools. Where did you learn that claptrap? Have you been brain-washed? I accept that you may want an independent Scotland, but to say that the Union has never ever financially benefited Scotland is quite frankly, delusional.

You are a manipulator of the facts as was shown in your first post regarding Michael Fry's views.

Joe, didn't Burns take up a position in a Jamaician sugar plantation? What nationalist principles if he did!


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.