The price of one...

Okay, this is the first of two posts that I plan to put up today. Because I am quite possibly the most clever blogger out there, I've decided to title them "Two for..." and "The price of one...." Or maybe it's just because I'm in my 9th hour of the 4th straight night that I've worked that I think I'm so clever. Anyway, onto the post.

I would like to use this first post to respond to a few criticisms leveled against me by Mr. Currie. I've decided that the best way to do that would be to take his comment paragraph by paragraph and respond to each point in order.

Okay, so his first criticism was that I mentioned the removal of James II and the Stuart dynasty in connection with the Act of Union in 1707 (his paragraphs 1 and 2). My point, which I'll admit I worded poorly, was that although James II had been deposed in 1688, a Stuart still sat on the throne in 1707 in the person of Queen Anne. Thus, the Scots, having been the ancient home of the Stuart line, could still take some pride in having a Scottish monarch on the throne as their parliament was ripped out from under them. My mention of George and the Hanoverians was only to show two things: 1) That the Scots were only 7 years away from losing even this feeble dignity, and 2) As a way to make a connection for my American audience to the history of Britain.

Second criticism: Yes, the Union wasn't perfect, but Glasgow benefited. I completely agree with this statement, and I'll admit that I made far too broad of a generalization by saying that all of Scotland remained little more than an internal colony. Yet, as A.J.S. Gibson and T.C. Smout have shown (in Prices, Food and Wages in Scotland, 1550-1780), the Union did little (or nothing) to raise laborers' wages in Edinburgh until around 1760. Unfortunately, the cost of feeding a family of 6 (2 adults and 4 children), began climbing shortly after the Union to a point above the average wages without a comparable era since the early 1600s (page 364). Combine this with the desperate attempts at economic development in the Highlands practiced by such groups as the British Fisheries Society and the Highland Roads and Bridges Commission in the late 1700s and early 1800s, and it becomes clear that much of the economic prosperity promised by proponents of the Union either never materialized or took a very long time to do so.

Third criticism: My mention of the Battle of Culloden has nothing to do with the Act of Union or conflict between Scotland and England. My response is that I never said it did. The idea of remembering Culloden Moor, as I asked my readers to do, is rather absurd given that it was a pointless battle. The rebellion had already been defeated and Charles Edward Stuart would have done well to march his supporters back into the Highlands where they either could have conducted a guerrilla campaign or blended back into the clans. Really the only reason to remember the battle, unless, like Mr. Currie you had family present, is if you're a Jacobite, and I suspect there are precious few of those in the world today.

Finally, Mr. Currie states that I am wrong in stating that a majority of Scots want an independent Scotland. To this I must plead ignorance. I am in the middle of Missouri, which is not exactly where you would go to observe Scottish politics or public opinion. While I am tempted to bow to Mr. Currie on this point, given that I assume he either lives in Scotland (based on the time at which he commented, this seems likely) or has family/friends there, I must point out that my situation allows me only to comment on such matters through the reading of various press materials. And here's what I found:

In the Daily Mail: This article describes the results of a recent poll that finds people on both sides of the border (England and Scotland) in favor or dissolving the Union (poll results shown in graphic form here).

In the Telegraph: Another poll showing people favoring independence for Scotland.

From BBC Newsnight: A poll that shows no support for independence, but it's close.

Finally, Mr. Currie states that in the May elections those that favor independence (the SNP) will not be successful. Once again, all I have to go on is polling data, and this one from YouGov and Channel 4 shows the SNP leading (although not enough to capture an outright majority by themselves).

Okay, that's all I've got. I'll try to be better about checking my facts before I post anything like that again, and I'll also try not to do it from work so that I can concentrate more and deliver you the high quality writing that The Mister Speaks is known for. Until then, BOOM!